Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Reference Desk

Science Mathematics Computing/IT Humanities Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
How to ask a question Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end. Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in. Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box. Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.	Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet. Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic. Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives. Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk. Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
After reading the above, you may ask a new question by clicking here. Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.
How to answer a question Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.	Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question. Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude. The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

August 1

Lord Rosebery

I was just wondering what issue exactly forced Lord Rosebery's liberal government out of power in 1895.

This explains that it was the supply of cordite to the army, an issue Rosebery had made a vote of confidence. But Rosebery was trying to escape: he had had a breakdown in his health both mental and physical, his lords reforms and other policies had been a failure, he had narrowly avoided being mentioned in Oscar Wilde's trial and his private secretary—who he may have been romantically linked with—Francis Douglas, Viscount Drumlanrig had shot himself the previous year. MeltBanana 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sculptor Sir William Reid Dick

I'd like information and advice regarding Reid Dick's sculpture "Dawn". Who could I contact with my questions? Thanks!-- gmd Aug.1'p6

Someone (you?) posted a question about a sculpture by this artist last week. The answers to that question will still be there. I'd suggest speaking to an art dealer or auction house. AllanHainey 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Lee's diet

Why is it that Bruce Lee ate lean meat sparingly? What are the benefits? I always thought that eating more would be advantageous in muscle growth since there would be a higher protein intake.

But was Bruce Lee's success simply a result of muscle, or was it more about skill, speed, stamina and studio FX? I would guess that eating lean meat sparingly is only part of the story here. Fruitarians report benefits to their diet, including higher energy levels and a clearer mind - though they're probably all a bit crackpot to start with. Nuts and pulses can provide adequately for the protein needs of strict vegetarians, so I can't see this being a major problem for an omnivore - though I guess a professional martial artist would need to do a lot of exercise. To see what constitutes an optimum diet for human health, see what other primates eat. --TheMadBaron 16:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Bruce Lee never shot with special effects. His speed on camera was so fast that the camera couldn't keep up. In addition, most of his films were shot in Hong Kong with a tight budget, so there was probably no money for special effects. And he _did_ do a lot of exercise - he was obsessed with training, because he knew there was a limit to his height and weight. Not just martial arts training - he believed that conditioning, similar to the way boxers condition, was an important part of the regiment. --ColourBurst 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you two said answers why he ate lean meat sparingly. AAK 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

sean paul

as I was trying to edit Sean Paul's page to include his Multiracial/Mulatto roots, someone else added a picture of a banana in place of his image...I'm not sure of how this happened, but I read the instructions on how to revert the page through the 'history' tab and I reset it..anyhow, under the 'background information' heading, I tried to add his ancestry/Ethnicity (Black Jamaican, English, Chinese, Portuguese) but the page did not save the changes. How can I add this info? Also, I added a quote to the second paragraph that explains his ancestry (it is very important to document the truth..someone put that Sean Paul was on the list of 'famous Eurasians'! I nearly fell out of my seat when I read this). Please don't let someone hijack his ancestry and I look forward to your help!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.190.60.226 (talk • contribs) 03:00, August 1, 2006 (UTC).

It looks to me like that info is now included, and is a quotation from the man himself, with a reference included. Good enough ? StuRat 23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tresaure Hunters Question

Does anyone have the answers to the questions on the NBC game on line?

Do you have the questions? (would make answering a lot easier) DirkvdM 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What railroad does the song "i have been working on the railroad" refer to in California.

It isn't "I have...", it is "I've...". See the article I've Been Working on the Railroad. It has all the lyrics and no specific railroad is mentioned. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

California is in the US. Is there more than one railroad? DirkvdM 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Try looking through List of California railroads. Rmhermen 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If we knew for a fact that it was in California (I don't), and also knew that the song is quite old (I do), I would guess they would be talking about the California portion of the Union Pacific railroad line which met up with the Central Pacific line in Promontory, Utah, where the Golden Spike was pounded in to commemorate the First Transcontinental Railroad line May 10, 1869. See image below. StuRat 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Route of the first American transcontinental railroad from Sacramento, California to Omaha, Nebraska.

Ah, if you cut them up into teeny weeny bits and also count metrorails, the list is bound to be big. A map would be nice for this article, to give an impression of how many lines there really are (and were). DirkvdM 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Counterfeit Money

If I created a currency note (in secret) that is indistinquishable from the real currency, is it a counterfeit note? Later if I try to sell it on ebay, can I be arrested if noone can proof that it is a counterfeit note (as oppose to a real note which I fraudulently claimed as a counterfeit note?)

The reason I'm asking if because I hit upon this great money making idea:

1. Get a real note (check the last 3 digits of it serial number).
2. Put it for sale on ebay as the perfect counterfeit note, indistinguishable from the real thing.
3. Claimed that I had a dream in which a currency note with the serial number ending with 778 is the perfect counterfeit note.
4. Sell it for more than it's face value.

Ohanian 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Secret Service is in charge of dealing with counterfeiting, and I don't think it is a good idea to flaunt the fact that you have counterfeited money, even if it isn't true. You probably can be arrested, because this is in effect a confession, and the bill is just an ordinary bill unless you declare it to be fraudulent. I would recommend scratching the idea. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from any laws specifically relating to currency that you might be breaking, what you are proposing is fraud. You are proposing to offer an item for sale knowingly describing it as something it is not, in order to increase the purchase price. --Mathew5000 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, why would someone pay more than face value for a currency note, counterfeit or not? You would do better to start making your fortune by selling a paper clip.--Shantavira 06:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Even someone stupid enough to fall for this wouldn't give you enough money to make it worth the effort (or the risk) and I suppose you could only do this once (or once in a year). On ebay, that is. You could do it daily in real life, but then you couldn't reach enough people to make it worth your time. I doubt if you'd find one idiot per day if you put all your time into this. And what's with the serial number and the dream? The sort of thing idiots would be fooled by? Actually, that sounds fairly plausible. DirkvdM 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The first irony here is that counterfeit money is supposed to be literally worth less than its face value if it is known to be false. But I don't doubt that some people would find its illegality exotic and be willing to pay more than the lowest denominations for one. The only good counterfeit note in this respect would be one with a very low face value.

The second irony here is that you are trying to create a counterfeit counterfeit—aka a real bill. Anyway... there was an interesting article on North Korean counterfeiting in the New York Times magazine two weeks ago under the headline of "No ordinary counterfeit". --Fastfission

I don't see who would buy money on EBay anyways, whether they knew if it was counterfeit or not... Viva La Vie Boheme

As far as I know it's illegal to possess counterfeit money even if you obtained it legally and legitimately, so I don't think there's anything you can do. If you know you have counterfeit money, you are obligated to turn it in to the authorities.--Anchoress 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure E-Bay reports that stuff when they find it, too... Russia Moore 02:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon vs Israel

Hi all, just want to know your opinion on the ongoing WAR between Lebanon and Israel??? -- FOZ

Sorry, this is for answering questions with some basis in fact, not for general personal opinionated discussions. AnonMoos 10:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AnonMoos, I have just checked your user page, and now I know what your opinion is.-- FOZ

I'm happy for you that you feel enlightened, but my user page contains rather little which is directly relevantly political, and nothing whatever on the specific issue you asked about. AnonMoos 11:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It does, however, suggest a severely one-tracked mind. DirkvdM 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's very sad. It's also my opinion that it's a conflict, not a war. Furthermore, it's my opinion that whatever the outcome, no-one will be the winner. Sadly, --Dweller 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I hold strong feelings on the matter, I'll hold back and simply second Dweller's comment. Whoever's right, whoever's wrong, whether any good will come out of this or whether none will, the death of any human being at the hands of another will always be the saddest possible of events in the human experience. Sad indeed. Loomis 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Wikipedia is not a message board and anyone who tries to turn it into one deserves worse than those suffering in the Labanon/Israel conflict. There are literally thousands of message boards on the Internet. Why should Wikipedia be ruined? --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then let me give an answer that is more worthy of the ref desk. It isn't a war between Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon isn't fighting. So it doesn't qualify as a war, I think. And given the fact that the Israeli army isn't very centrally organised (at least according to the military who inverstigated the 1996 shelling of Qana) one might argue that it's really terorism. But now I'm slipping into the realm of opinion again. DirkvdM 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Worse than those on either side? In other words, worse than death itself? Is Wikipedia that important that one should die for asking a mildly inappropriate question? FOZ may have asked a mildly innapropriate question, but your response, Kainaw, that FOZ "deserves worse" than those suffering in a war zone is infinitely more innapropriate.

As for Dirk's remark...oh well...what can you expect...Dirk will be Dirk. I could destroy his argument in a matter of seconds, but it's just not worth the effort anymore.

Anyway, the point of all these responses was that the RefDesk is not a forum for taking opinion polls. Perhaps you weren't aware, FOZ, and you definitely don't deserve such disgusting treatment for your minor gaffe. In any case, though, they are right in the sense that this is not a place for opinion polls. Regardless, all the best, FOZ. Loomis 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You misread my comment - I don't wish death upon those who mistakenly ask inappropriate questions. I wish death on those who purposely ask inappropriate questions with the intent of turning Wikipedia from an online source of (hopefully) factual information to another message board. Of course, I have a much lower value on the general concept of human life than is considered acceptable, but I do not hide that opinion because what annoys me so much about humans is the falseness in the way everyday life is conducted. So, I strive to be honest about my opinion that there is nothing special about humans or human life. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You bother to read what Loomis writes? I've given that up some time ago. DirkvdM 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!!!! Death!!!!! It seems I've actually read your comment quite correctly. "I wish death on those who purposely ask inappropriate questions with the intent of turning Wikipedia from an online source of (hopefully) factual information to another message board".

Kainaw, PLEASE, chill! Wikipedia is NOT THAT IMPORTANT to wish death upon anyone, no matter how much they muck it up, even purposely. Death????? Death for upsetting Wikipedians? Are you serious? Death?????

Whatever FOZ's missteps, accidental or intentional, this kind of language is unnaceptable.

Please either apologize, or quit contributing to Wikipedia, as we have no use for your kind here. However, if you don't, I'm afraid your outrageous remarks must be reported to the staff at wiki. It's simply unnacceptable to wish DEATH on anyone at Wikipedia. Your remarks are unnacceptable and have no place here. Please either retract them or leave Wikipedia for good. Loomis 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bye. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance. Loomis 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I deplore what Kainaw said, but I would have liked an outcome where he/she stayed around to participate in reasoned discourse. There's always something else at the bottom of such extreme views. JackofOz 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill out guyz, let me clear my intentions, I didnt want to turn our wikipedia to a war zone.... never friends. I live somewhere near Lebanon, and I feel sorry for whats happening there,and thats why I wanted to know people's opinion all over the world on this issue( as I am a very curious girl) So plz stop cursing me.-- FOZ

Kainaw may have put it rahter bluntly (even to my taste), but he does have a point. There are lots of opinions flying around on the ref desk, but the primary target here should be providing info. Spewing opinions after that has been done is one thing (I do it a lot myself), but asking for opinions without asking for information is not something that should be done here. That said, why don't we heave a page for that? Wikipedia is not a chat room, but that doesn't mean it can't have one. Looking for info on this I found WikiReason, but there isn't much going on there it seems. DirkvdM 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think I might have asked for an opinion before (or did I just read a question, asking for an opinion, I can't remember). Anyway, a sensible option seems to either provide a place for people to come together to express opinions (a userpage is unsuitable unless people know to congregate there) or to endorse an external forum, and direct such discussions over there. --130.161.182.77 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I haven't gone anywhere (well, actually, I did - spent all day travelling). I find it rather amusing that it is considered in terrible taste to be honest. Nobody else has ever wished someone else would just die? I am the absolute only person in the world who has been fed up with certain behaviour and thought that it would be easier if someone else would just die? Of course not. It is human. If you claim you've never ever thought that someone else should die, you are a liar and, as I stated, you are the reason that I do not put value on human life in general. I value specific people, but not human life. If I was told I had to choose between saving Wikipedia or saving some random stranger, I would choose Wikipedia. I do not demand (as Loomis demands) that you appologize for disagreeing with my opinion - which you should disagree with my opinion! I already stated that my personal value on human life is well below the norm. So, please Loomis, report me for disagreeing with you. Report me for having an opinion that you don't like. Report me for being honest. I'd love to see where it goes. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He's back! And worse than ever! :) Man, you and Loomis have to chill out. You think that Wikipedia should not be turned into a message board and Loomis thinks that to wish anyone's death in Wikipedia is unaceptable. Well, I am sorry to tell that the Reference desks are allready kind off message boards, and aslong they are not too exagerated, nothing is wrong with it (I rather like to read them from time to time). We can bend the rules aslong as we don't break them (have you ever run over a red light? I have.). Everybody has wished the death of somebody else and merely wishing it is not a crime (it's only a wish and not a real statement of purpose). It only becomes a crime when you really kill somebody else. Having said that, I think that your statement was of undeniable bad taste - You didn't merely wish it, you also really had to write it down - and this is simply not encouraged here. Let's simply forget this whole matter. And welcome back (but please don't push it, OK? Flamarande 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) PS: What you both really need are a nice girlfriends (or boyfriends? whatever) and bit less of Wikipedia.

Give me a break Kainaw !!!!! What the hell do you mean by : "If I was told I had to choose between saving Wikipedia or saving some random stranger, I would choose Wikipedia" !!! who is destroying\harming YOUR wikipedia??? FOZ ' The stranger '...Well let me tell you that you are highly mistaken,Im not an enemy of wikipedia !! I do admit I shoudnt have put my question this way, but at the end it is just a question!!! So plz dont pour it that thick.-- FOZ

Actually, honesty doesn't bother me one bit. Rather, it's honestly expressed psychopathic thoughts and tendencies that I find quite disturbing. Have I ever wished someone to die? Honestly? Come to think of it, I suppose I have...a few cold-blooded murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. And even then I find myself conflicted, as even those thoughts seem to clash head-on with my instinctive respect for human life.

"Nobody else has ever wished someone else would just die? I am the absolute only person in the world who has been fed up with certain behaviour and thought that it would be easier if someone else would just die? Of course not. It is human." Actually no, Kainaw, it is not human. Especially when the behaviour you're talking about is a mere breach of etiquette. With the exception of the natural (but restrained) urge to want to do harm to the most vile and disgusting of criminals (i.e. murderers, rapists, pedophiles etc...), no, it's not human. It's actually the definition of psychopathy.

In fact, this may shock you Kainaw, but despite your psychopathic ranting, I haven't the slightest urge to kill you. Honest. In fact, I don't have the slightest urge to hurt you in any way, not even a well deserved slap-upside the head. As a matter of fact, the only urge I'm feeling right now is the urge to somehow help you. Honest. What I wish for you is to get some professional help to help you deal with your unusual homicidal urges, and to get to the bottom of whatever issues you're dealing with which seem to be driving these extreme anti-social thoughts. I can just imagine, Kainaw, you must be suffering a great deal of pain to have developed such misanthropic feelings about the world around you. As I've said many times here to many people I've disagreed with, I wish you all the best, Kainaw. Honest. Loomis 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that the reference desk isn't the best place at which to continue this discussion, it should be noted that there are those of us who think the sundry replies of Loomis to be much more pernicious and indecorous than the several remarks of Kainaw. To be sure, where conduct disrupts the project (cf., simply irks several project participants but does not impair the collaborative processes on which the success of the project depends), those undertaking such conduct should be advised as to its impropriety.

Anything further is, IMHO, gratuitious, and even as I would not at all mind engaging in a colloquy with another user apropos of morality, even where such colloquy would involve much castigation of me, I can't imagine that it serves anyone well for a user to attempt to inculcate morals to another here (where such inculcation is ostensibly unwanted). In truth, 've no problem with anything Kainaw has said, and I've no problem with anything Loomis has said, but, to the extent that one has disrupted the project, it is almost surely Loomis rather than Kainaw (should Loomis and Kainaw desire to discuss what ethical impulses ought to underlie human behavior, it's altogether fine for them to do so, but the reference desk, once more, isn't, I imagine, the appropriate place). Joe 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I had sincerely hoped that this whole thing would have been solved diplomatically. I.e., after tempers cooled down, Kainaw would realize that his Death Threat was unnacceptable and would have been kindly withdrawn it, explaining it as a mere burst of temper and nothing to really be concerned about. We've all lost our temper now and again. I would be the first to forgive. Unfortunately this is not how things have turned out.

Death Threats are a serious matter. They do not merely "irk" me. Joe may have been merely "irked" by the whole thing, but then again he wasn't the one being threatned with death.

(Joe may regard my remarks as "gratuitous", but speaking of "gratuitous", I just can't help but remark on Joe's overwhelmingly "gratuitous" usage of unnecessarily pretentious vocabulary. "Sundry"? "Pernicious"? "Indecorous"? "Colloquy"? etc...etc...etc...Yes, I know what all those big words mean. But no, pretentious vocabulary doesn't intimidate me. Rather, I see its "gratuitous" usage as a sign of intellectual insecurity. Myself, I just choose to speak like regular folk, as I myself, am regular folk.)

Of course we all feel comfortable in the anonymity of cyberspace. But who knows. I'm sure the technology, software and brainpower is available to actually determine my actual home address, as well as FOZ's, as well as Joe's.

In any case, Death Threats are crimes in most civilized jurisdictions.

For example, where I live, section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides:

(1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to recieve a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person...

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen months.

This is but the example in Canada. Nonetheless, all other civilized jurisdictions have similar laws. But please, nobody worry, I'm just presenting the law to prove a point. I have absolutely no intention of actually pursuing legal matters in any sense at all.

Joe, we're not talking about simple "morals" here. I'm not trying to inculcate Kainaw with any particular set or "morals". In fact, if you check, I never even introduced any "morality" terminology into any of my statements, at any point.

Rather, my statement was strictly concerned with mental health, not morality at all. Homicidal tendencies, misanthropy, etc...are clear textbook examples of mental pathology.

"Morality" is an entirely different issue that I never wished to touch upon. It's an entirely personal matter. It touches upon one's personal religious beliefs (if any), one's spirituality, etc...I had never introduced that sensitive issue into the discussion at all.

Most atheists and agnostics usually assert that human beings, left on their own, don't need any silly ancient text to tell them that to kill is wrong. Rather it's ingrained in all of us.

I've generally agreed with them, despite my faith. However due to this little episode I can't help but rethink the whole thing. Loomis 07:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And as for everybody else, don't worry, I'm totally chill! Yes, Kainaw's whole "Death Threat" thing is rather disturbing, but despite my language all I'm trying to do is prove what I believe to be a VERY important point. As I'm still rather sure that no one knows my exact home adress, I'm really not stressed about anything at all. :-) I still wish everybody, Kainaw AND Joe included, all the very best. Loomis 08:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It may just be me, but doesn't a death threat require you to threaten to kill someone? Kainaw said that he felt they deserved worse than either Israel or Hezbollah. Loomis brought up death. Kainaw agreed that he felt they deserved death. Now Loomis is calling that a death threat. What did I miss? Youth in Asia 21:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Death threats are not interpreted by the law so simplistically. We've all made hyperbolic "death threats" that were clearly not intended, nor received as "real" death threats, and as such, legally speaking, are not death threats at all. "I swear I'll kill you if you eat that last slice of pizza!"

A death threat is when you convey a message, by whatever means, that causes that person to fear for their life.

Of course this is a very borderline case, especially since it all took place on the net and therefore (hopefully) nobody knows where anybody else lives. As I said, I'm only trying to prove a point here, not actually make a "real life" legal case. I was only drawn into the whole "death threat" thing due to Joe's words. He accused me of attempting to "inculcate morals" unto Kainaw. I responded that it had nothing to do with "inculcating morals", (morality being a private issue and none of my business). Rather this was far more akin to a "mental health" issue, which in turn, is deemed to be a "public safety" issue. Ask any shrink. They're well trained as to their legal responsibilities. If a psychiatrist had a patient who admitted to have "a much lower value on the general concept of human life than is considered acceptable", along with expressions that he wished certain others would "just die" ... well I'm sure, at the very least, any conscientious psychiatrist would be sure to be in close consultation with his or her peers, discussing what, at the very least, is a very delicate, very potentially dangerous issue. Loomis 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Morals are a gift from God. You can argue that this is oppinion but, just because you do not understand something does not make it less true. There have been countless facts that people have not understood and therefor dismissed as someones over active imagination. In time all truths will be understood. Electricity and the lightbulb or going to the moon are good examples. Ironicly it is religion that is used most often as an excuse to violate these morals. The crusades and the attack on the World Trade Center are examples of this. A wise man once said "Some people confuse God with religion and walk away from them both". What is happening in the Middle East is the same thing that has been happening for thousands of years. The day it stops will be the most reliable sign of the end. It has got to get worse before it can get better.ĆÁĎ

Are you lot mad you started off disscussing Israel and lebenon and now it death theats, shut up shut up shut up. whats going on in lebenon is far more important than a throw away comment. i dont know wher you lot are from but in the UK the reporting in the news is more that a little biased. what is going on in Israel? they are being bombed to yet all we ever get is lebenon, lebenon, lebeon. anti semetism males me sick. Why are we only getting death tolts of lebones when one of Israel's biggest cities is beoing bomed daily. what is going on?

hey,Im replying to the last comment, Listen you, I think you are mistaken somewhere, by the way which news channel do you watch, just check out aljazeeza.net and you will be shocked to know the truth. And FYI more then 900 lebanese(civilians)have died so far in this conflict!!!!! As you know Israel is fighting Hizbollah, so why the hell is it bombing residential areas where innocent people live???

Aljazeeza.net is full of lies. They even admit to publishing bizarre anti-Jewish and anti-American conspiracy theories. I prefer to get my news from neutral sources. StuRat 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

hello..just wanted to comment on second last opinion on this topic..I think who is worrying abt UK is actually stupid..Can't u make difference between both situations??people in UK might have been killed in so-called attack today!!! but people in lebanon are actualy being killed daily without any mercy..don't u think it worth more attention if u r not blind??n which poor israel city yor talking abt???there is no such attack or bombing on any city,and if there is any,its not like bombing that israel doing on poor lebaneese cities and villages..Do u know above 1000 civilians have been killed so far in labanon and few hizbullah fighters,in israel death toll only 100 most of them soldiers who died in collisions????just answer 1 question?if this war and death of innocent people was happening in your owm country,and some1 said that this matter is not big thing..how would you response??please answer my question and reply to this whole message..[Arab soul]

Well, if I was a Shiite in southern Lebanon and was supporting a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) with money, shelter, food, votes, etc., while they built up a supply of rockets and then sent those rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill as many civilians there as posssible, I would expect to be bombed by Israel. I, for one, would stop supporting Hezbollah, and get rid of them, so that Israel would no longer have to attack the terrorist while they were hiding behind human shields. I would instead support an organization which would spend it's money on the people (including bomb shelters) and work for peace, instead of using it's money to buy weapons and instigate war with Israel. StuRat 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there are three separate answers to that question. The first is human shield, whereas the second is human shield. Finally, the third is, rather surprisingly, human shield. To repeat, human shield, human shield and, human shield. Loomis 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Health Insurance Netherlands

I'm in need of health insurance for a long-term (years-life) stay in the netherlands. How do I compare the available options? I've only heard of 'silver star' or something. --130.161.135.32 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's probably 'Zilveren Kruis' (Silver Cross, which is nowe owned by Achmea). Which happens to have been my insurance company for the last few decades. I only seriously needed them once and they did a proper job then (I was in hospital abroad and they genuinely helped me getting things organised), so I'll stick with them. That's the main criterium if you ask me (and you did :) ). When you're sick is a time you certainly don't want any troubles, so you need an insurance company that doesn't give you any hassle then. The insurance system in the Netherlands was recently changed, with the purpose of creating more competition between companies. All the stress was (as it would be) on the price of the different companies. So they will try to get that down. So they will try to get the cost down. Their biggest cost factor will be personnell, and the best way to have less cost there is less service. The most important thing you'd want from an insurance company. I fear that means insurance will go down the drain. All the companies will be for is paying your bills for you. And of course they will have to try harder not to do that (also to reduce the cost). So you will spend a lot of time fighting them to get your money back, giving you headaches when you're sick.

One reason to reduce this (some practical advise in stead of whining now) is to take out an insurance with maximum 'eigen risico' ('own risk'? Don't know the English term), meaning you pay your own bills unless the total for one year exceeds a certain level. The maximum 'eigen risico' is 500 euro. So most of the time you won't have any dealing with them. For this you also get two financial advantages. The payments are about 250 euro less per year and for 'no claim' you get about 250 euro back at the end of the year. So you break even if the medical costs are 500 euro. Below that you save money. Between 500 and 750 you lose money (compared to no 'eigen risico') and above 750 euro you declare the costs, meaning you don't get the 250 euro for 'no claim'. That's the scheme that makes most sense. Which company you choose probably doesn't matter much. Actually, I'd avoid the cheaper companies because they will probably provide less service, but that's just my guess.

Welcome to the Netherlands, by the way! DirkvdM 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What, no free marijuana as a welcoming gift ? StuRat 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana isn't exactly legal in the Netherlands (it's legal in small quantities, however it's illegal to distribute). See drug policy of the Netherlands. --ColourBurst 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That 'eigen risico' thing sounds like what's called an "excess" in Australia. An excess of, say, AUD $200 means that for any relevant claim, what the insurance company pays out in benefits is $200 less than it would otherwise have been. But the premiums for that type of cover are also less than they would have been had there not been an excess, so it cuts both ways. There's also the concept of a "co-payment", where a specified part of the charge is the member's responsibility, and the remaining charge is what the insurance company bases its benefit assessment on. They are technically different, but as far as the insured person is concerned, excesses and co-payments are just out-of-pocket expenses. JackofOz 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If want to see a GP, do I have to pay for that, or is it a free service like in the UK? I went to the 'Zilveren Kruis' website, but it's in Dutch and the doesn't appear to be a translation. I'm on a very low income at the moment (and going to blow it all on more education anyway) so I don't want to pay thousands of euros when I don't know what I'm getting. Funnily enough, they don't teach Dutch in most English schools and without structured learning, it takes more than a few weeks to learn. --130.161.182.77 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this goes for expats too (and mind you I'm no expert on this, so ask elsewhere too), but the highest premium you'd have to pay (no 'eigen risico') is just over 1000 euro per year. That doesn't cover everything, though, with the most important exclusion being dental insurance. But it does cover a visit to the doctor. DirkvdM 09:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oil Painting question

Hello. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I have been searching the web for days now to find any information about a painting I obtained. The painting is approx. 4 feet wide x 1 1/2 feet tall. It is oil on canvas. The information on the back is as follows : 1910-820 Paris St Scene. The signiture on the bottom left corner is what is throwing me for a loop. There is a "C" followed by a space then a "D" followed by a letter that looks like a lower cased "I" with a curve to the left at the top. Then the balance of the name is "LLasuir". So the whole name is probably " C DiLLasuir " but as I stated I have found nothing on either the paintings name or artist name. I believe the artist is french so the curve on the "i" could be the slant the put above vowels? Just thought I would throw that out there. Any information that you could provide would be helpful. Thanks again.

Doug Moore--24.154.25.10 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't provide any information but it might be worthwhile to photograph the painting & post it here as someone may be able to identify, if not the painting, the style or artist. AllanHainey 09:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jacksonville mayor age requirement

What is the age requirement to run for mayor in Jacksonville, Florida (18? 21?) --Revolución hablar ver 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

please, answer me! --Revolución hablar ver 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Try here Nowimnthing 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Start a revolution and seize power. There's no age limit for that. :) DirkvdM 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no age limit on delusions of granduer, as Stewie Griffin on Family Guy can attest. StuRat 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Secularism vs. Laïcité

Having read both articles on secularism and laïcité (I'd never post a question without first reading the main articles!) I still don't think I completely understand the distinction. For some reason, France and Turkey are always singled out as not necessarily "secular" states, but rather "laïcist". It would be understandable if it were just France that was mentioned, simply because laïcité is a French word. Why then is Turkey, and only Turkey, invariably matched up as the only other real "laïcist" state?

It would seem to me that laïcité is virtually synonimous with secularism. One possible cause for my confusion is that I may be comparing apples with oranges in the sense that while laïcité may be specifically concerned with state policy, secularism is a much broader term that can be used to describe a much wider sociological phenomenon that goes far beyond simple state policy. But once again, why is Turkey, and only Turkey, invariably included?

Is "laïcité" perhaps a stricter form of secularism? For example, despite the First Ammendment to the US Constitution, it is apparently acceptable to mention "God" on US currency, and in its pledge of allegiance. As well, (without getting political...please let's not go there!) the current President happens to be a deeply religious man, (but then again, so was Carter, so please, let's not get into a discussion about particular US Presidents!) Is it that laïcité is an even stricter version of secularism, in the sense that the mere mention or open reference to religion is against state policy?

Once again, France may fit the bill, with it's controversial prohibition of conspicuously religious symbols in public schools and all, but once again, why Turkey?

Turkey may indeed be a "secular" state by any reasonable assessment, yet, like most secular states, there do remain some, at the very least "vestigial" signs of religion, such as the presence of the crescent moon, representing Islam, on its flag. I'm not saying that the presence of such a symbol precludes a country from being secular, if that were so, the dozen or so clearly secular countries in Europe alone with crosses on their flags such as England, Scotland, the UK as a whole, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Greece... could not describe themselves as secular, no less "laïcist", yet Turkey remains as pretty much the only other state other than France that is referred to as "laïcist".

Sorry for the rambling question! (I can't help it, my questions always seem to be overly wordy, but at least this time it wasn't a rant! Nothing really controversial that I can think of here!) In any case, there are two simple parts to my question: 1) What's the difference between "Secularism" and "Laïcité"; and 2) What makes Turkey the only state other than France to be considered "laïcist"? Loomis 14:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish approach is modeled after the French approach. The concept of laïcité is hard to grasp, but if you agree that "French secularism" is special, well, "Turkish secularism" is just like that. For example, in most countries female students at a public school who are Muslims are allowed to cover their heads with a scarf, but in Turkey that is forbidden. The wife of the current prime minister does not attend receptions because she refuses to take off her scarf. The star and crescent as a symbol of Turkey predates the Ottoman Empire (and in fact even the Byzantine Empire as it appears on coins of Byzantium, and is only related to Islam by association. In Turkey itself it is not perceived as having religious significance. --Lambiam^Talk 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lambiam, for the intelligent response. I'd just like to make sure I understand you correctly. Would it be safe to say that pure secularism (and I italicize it because it would seem that in its purest form, no state in the world seems to be purely secular,) is mainly concerned with the neutrality of the state with regards to religion (or atheism), but in no way intends to supress the public display of religious belief by private individuals, while laïcité takes secularism a step further, and aims to discourage (or even supress) such public displays of religious belief by private individuals, with the aim of creating an even more harmonious, and less acrimonious society? In other words, while secularism can be described as "the separation of church and state", laïcité can be described as (with the exception of purely private religious practice,) the "separation of church and society"?

As an example, would it be safe to say that in secular state, a private citizen is free (so long as he or she is not in violation of any "breach of the peace" type ordinance,) to hop onto a soapbox in a public place and preach whatever religious belief he or she feels like preaching, while such conduct in a laïcist state, would be forbidden as too divisive? I'm not arguing for or against laïcité here. I'm sure it has at least some socially redeaming qualities. I'd just like to understand the concept better, but as you yourself said, the concept is hard to grasp.

As for the star and crescent on the Turkish flag, I understand that these symbols predate Islam, and I'll accept what you say as fact, that in Turkey these symbols are not perceived as having religious significance. Yet I doubt many in the rest of the world, who are familiar with the central significance of the crescent in Islam, would be aware of this subtlety. Appearances can be extremely important. Take for example the ankh. It's basically a cross with a loop on top, yet the ankh symbol predates Christianity by many centuries, if not millenia. Yet today, most people not fully informed would tend to associate it with Christianity, and, as I've just learned from the article on it, the ankh indeed was adopted by the early Egyptian Christian Church, and, assuming the article is correct, its adoption by this Church is actually considered to be the first time Christians accepted a cross-like symbol to represent their religion. Before this, the cross was considered by early Christians as offensive. I was actually surprised to read this, but unless wiki is totally wrong on this one, it appears to be a rather fascinating piece of history. Anyway, this has nothing to do with laïcité, so I'll quit my little tangent right here. Thanks for the response though! Loomis 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You understood me correctly, although what I wrote is actually a simplification. I don't think though that separation of church (if you can call Islam that) and society is the right description, unless you equate society with public life. Both for France and for Turkey the aim of the laicists was, as I understand it, not so much harmony as to get the state out of the clutches of religion, using a more drastic approach than needed in democratic societies in which non-interference from religion was already common and part of accepted culture, or in which no single religion had an overwhelming majority. The Ottoman Empire had a history of a sequence of failed attempts at modernization, thwarted each time by the Ulema, thereby contributing to its ultimate decline and fall. --Lambiam^Talk 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A Painting that we own

My wife wants me to find out if this painting has any value. She gave me this information to look up. This information is on the painting. Dixvill Notch,N.H.---A.W. Quiney 1889---and je jonge or de junge.

Thank You Joseph N. Caucci

de junge (could it be die Junge?) sounds like it means the youth in German. —Daniel (‽) 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a better method of valuing your painting would be to take it to an art dealer and valuer. AllanHainey 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

American dead in World War II

Is there a website that lists the names (and other information) of all the Americans who died in World War II? 66.213.33.2 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That would likely be a very long list, too long to put on a list. But I'd imagine maybe there is some kind of database with all the names, but I can't help you with that. --Revolución hablar ver 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

here you can find 176,000 of the over 400,000 casualites. The remaining 224,000 may be a bit harder to find. Nowimnthing 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From context I'm going to assume that the website means 'dead' when it says 'casualties'. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In military jargon "casualties" includes: dead, missing and wounded. Try the National Museum of World War II for deaths.Elis1054 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Did US pay to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons?

As part of disarmament, did the US pay or provide services to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons?

If so, now that Russia has improved economically (due in part to oil) can we get our money back?--Ronbarton 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

see Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, this is still an ongoing process. I think most see it as more of an investment in our safety than a loan to the Russians. Nowimnthing 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. is also one of several countries helping Russia get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile as well. Rmhermen 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But what did it cost the taxpayers?--Ronbarton 02:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Lugar's website about $400 million per year or 5.7 billion from 1992-2006. But that is going to several different countries, not just Russia. Many other countries contribute to various projects as well. Either way $400 million is a steal compared to $75 billion this year for Iraq and Afghanistan. Nowimnthing 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally most analysts consider it money well spent. We didn't just give the money away, we helped to make sure that terrorists couldn't get their hands on the copious amounts of nuclear material in the country. I don't think anyone is getting stingy about that. It wasn't exactly a "service"—it was something which would have direct implications on global security. Personally I think it's one of the best successes in anti-proliferation efforts in recent years. --Fastfission 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You also have to realize that the winner of a war (even a bloodles war like the Cold War) needs to help (or should) the defeated foe to get on his feet, to turn him hopefully into a new friend. Not to help a defeated enemy, or even worse humiliate him (through rape, plunder or border redrawing), only leads to another conflict. Best example is the Versailles treaty (a complete failure) which humiliated Germany and helped Hitler into being elected (in his propaganda he promised that the national humiliation would be avenged). After WWII the US poured billions of dollars into Germany (and Western Europe) through the Marshall plan and also into Japan. Germany and Japan became good American allies. Of course nothing is that easy, both countries are allies and follow their own interrests but the trend is still there. Flamarande 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

It is said that possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in our attacks there, as well as in our response to suicide bombers. It is also said that a stunning number of Iraqis died each year under Hussein's rule. Which - our invasion of Iraq or Hussein's rule - do you all consider to have been safer for Iraqis? Thanks Sashafklein 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, during the first 17.8 months after the invasion, about 100,000 more people died than would have died during that period of time under Saddam's regime. The confidence interval for this study was very wide, and the authors took all deaths into account - not just the ones caused by the US troops - but it seems quite certain that the death rate did go up as a result of the invasion. They also wrote: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children." David Sneek 19:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that study is thoroughly flawed (and may have an agenda, as well) in that it only compares post-invasion Iraq with the relatively peaceful years just prior, and neglects to mention all the deaths caused by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War, the Kurdish genocide, the Kuwait Invasion, the Shiite Uprising, etc. If you really believe Saddam would never do anything comparable to any of those things again, then it's a valid study. I, for one, don't think it would have taken Saddam long to go back to his old ways. StuRat 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is to be expected during an invasion. The idea was that things would improve after that. But they haven't really and there is still little hope for improvement. The media now focus fully on Israel's invasion of Lebanon, but the death toll there is nothing compared to Iraq. It has been going on for so long now that it is no longer news. But of course the duration makes it only worse. So the worst things get least attention. And to think this all started because of a mere few thousand deaths in the US. Which is about equal to the amount of people getting killed in the US in car accidents in just three months. Every three months. Year in year out. Which makes that infinitely more important than all wars put together. Because it's an ongoing problem. For which reason it isn't news, ironically. The media should put more effort into putting the various things in the world in perspective. Like pointing out that what is going on in Sudan is even worse than the above 'conflicts'. DirkvdM 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're writing from Iraq. If so, I welcome you with open arms to the free world; that is, if the bulk of your countrymen and women finally decide that they actually want to live in the free world.

As an Iraqi, WE should be asking YOU what you'd prefer.

It's true, a stunning amount of deaths would have occurred either way. Take, for example, the 1 million+ deaths that occured as a result of Saddam's little adventure into Iran in the '80s. (A war in which, by the way, Saddam clearly used WMDs, the stockpiles of which seem to have vanished into thin air.)

Anyway, if you ask me, I kinda like the attitude of the New Hampshire state motto, which they print on all their license plates: "Live free or die". In other words, I'd rather die in a free Iraq than be a slave serving under a dictator. But that's just my view. Like I said, it's YOUR country, and, though this may be new to you, it's YOUR decision what kind of country you want to live in. Loomis 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...that sounds like the opposite of New Hampshire. I guess the Iraq motto right now is "live free and die". --198.125.178.207 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even at its worst, the Iraqi motto seems to be a choice between "Live as slaves and die" or "Live free and die" (which I don't at all agree with either, but even if so, I'd much prefer the latter). Loomis 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Westerners have an amazing ability to believe that it is better to be dead than to live under a dictatorship, even though time and time again most people usually throw their lot in with "life". In any case it is pretty presumptuous to make that decision for other people. "Well, we know you'd surely rather be dead than live under this government, why even bother asking?" --Fastfission 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If the choice was between CERTAIN death and oppression, most would choose oppression, yes. But the choice is typically between a slight risk of death and oppression, in which case many will take the slight risk. Even if we accept the figures of 100,000 killed in Iraq, that's less than 1/2 of 1% of the population, so we're talking about a 1/200 risk of death. While significant, those are the kind of odds people may be willing to risk for freedom. Also note that the risk is much worse in some areas and much better in other areas. StuRat 04:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And what are the casualty numbers on both sides of the Lebanon conflict right now? Sashafklein 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with your original question? Of course the casualty numbers are higher in Lebanon than in Israel. There are many reasons for that which I won't go into right now. But what would you have Israel do? Locate military bases in civilian neighbourhoods and generally fight as poorly as their enemies so that the casualty count will be equal? Does the fact that Israel is a better fighting force than any of its enemies, and does not turn its civilian communities into launching pads make it somehow more blameworthy? Loomis 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My brother and I am Jewish. He's 22. I'm 17, and I've gotten in fairly heated arguments with him lately, because he's anti-Israel whereas I'm pro. He's called me racist several times (even though Islam is not a race) got saying that I understand, but don't support, the Israeli attacks on Lebanon right now. And he's brought up the disproportionality of the Israel-Palestine conflict (some bomber attacks and Israel responds by invading an whole city.) Though I think it ludicrous that Israel should count how many have been killed in terrorist bombing and shoot just that many, I do also believe that the disproportionality of all Israeli counterattacks hurts them more than it helps in a conflict in which each extra civilian, or even each terrorist, they kill, breeds more. I was just interested in knowing if there were already a number known for this particular war yet. Just curious. Didn't want to start a new topic. Sashafklein 07:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, race definitely isn't the issue here because they are all semites. But neither is religion. It's just a conflict between countries (or peoples in the cultural sense). If it were more about religion, then the muslim countries might unite against Israel and with international support gone (except officially from the US, who are too busy elsewhere), even rich and armed-to-the-teeth Israel might not be able to withstand that. Then again, if that happened and Israel would again become the underdog it might get international support. At least morally, but right now no country dares burn its fingers on the conflict and that might not change. How much 'firepower' do Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the like have, compared to Israel? DirkvdM 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think religion is at the core, being the only possible explanation for why two groups fight over such a small and otherwise insignificant corner of the world. If it hadn't been the birthplace of (or near) the founding of three of the world's major religions, Israel/Palestine wouldn't be of much value to anyone. As for firepower, Israel has nukes, so definitely has more. Also, historically the Arabs did poorly even when they had superior firepower, due to lack of cooperation and training. StuRat 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the (previous and still) lack of cooperation that I'm referring to. But it isn't an insignificant corner of the world if you happen to live there. Anyway, the total size is just over that of the Netherlands, so who are you calling insignificant? DirkvdM 09:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands rarely makes the world news, and I would expect the same of Israel/Palestine, if no religion was involved. StuRat 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The souvereignity (is that proper English?) of the Netherlands is not disputed, nor are its borders. Actually, we can count ourselves lucky this is such a boring country. :) DirkvdM 08:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That may say something about the quality of the "world" news you get in your respective countries, and your media's concepts of which countries actually inhabit the world. News about the Netherlands often appears on Australian media. As does news about Botswana, Chad, Bulgaria, Paraguay and other countries that in some parts of the world are considered too insignificant to even be recognised as countries. JackofOz 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I watch BBC World News and CNN, mainly. Both seem to judge the significance of an event by it's potential effect on their country, which seems reasonable to me. Tiny countries only get mentioned, typically, if they are in the running for a sports competition, like the Olympics or World Cup. StuRat 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think race isn't an issue because anthropologically they are classified as being part of the same language family, I'd dare to hazard you don't understand how racial thinking works. Even in these United States as austere and nit-picking an institution as the U.S. Supreme Court did not let mere anthropological fact get into the way of their racial categories (see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind). --Fastfission 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If they would dress and talk alike, I bet they themselves wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They're not just the same 'race', but also the same ethnic group. Especially Jews have been protrayed in various twisted ways, depending on the political agenda of those depicting them, which doesn't quite help here. DirkvdM 10:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three questions, three answers:

• Iraq with Saddam see Human rights in Saddam's Iraq
• Iraq after Saddam see Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
• Lebanon see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Casualties

most of the figures should be there. Nowimnthing 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A very quick look at those articles says hundreds of thousands dead in a few years both before and after the invasion. So things don't deem to have changed much (in rough terms). And 'just' one thousand dead in Lebanon/Israel (almost exclusively Lebanese civilians, btw), but that's in a few weeks, not years, so if that drag on as long and at the same scale (which I doubt) it might 'catch up'. DirkvdM 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the above posts is actually right. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples. Sort of like how Germans, Austrians, Danes, Swedes, Noweigians, Icelanders and the Dutch (as well as several more peoples, forgive me but I'm sure a few have escaped my mind) are all Germanic peoples. They're all basically the same ethnic group. In fact, unlike Jews and Arabs who tend to adhere to three entirely different faiths, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Germanic peoples (not including of course those who choose to reject religion entirely) are pretty much exclusively Christian, giving them, if anything, that much more in common than Jews and Arabs. If only they would all just dress and talk alike, I doubt a Dutchman would be able to tell himself apart from a Dane! (I often get them confused myself, they're so damn similar!) Loomis 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and yes, right again. Most of the deaths in the current Hezbollah/Israel conflict are indeed, very sadly, Lebanese civilians. Well, we all know the reason for that, with the old human shield tactic and all, so no point in going into that. I just feel that it should be mentioned as well that in both pre and post-Saddam Iraq, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands killed were civilians as well. Oddly though, based on the above post, it seems that civilian deaths are only worth mentioning for some reason when Israel is somehow involved in the conflict. Curious. I really wonder what's behind that otherwise completely arbitrary and inexplicable distinction. Loomis 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Refering to "Of course the casualty numbers are higher in Lebanon than in Israel", I have a very simple question for Loomis, Why the hell is Israel killing lebanese people while its fighting Hizbollah, not forgeting to mention that the Lebanon government is not invovled in this conflict??? Does anybody know that more than 900 lebanese have died in so called War against tererrisom for no reason.

See the article on human shield. And if you still don't understand, you can also look at the article on human shield. If that one doesn't convince you, as a final resort, you can always rely on the human shield article. Loomis 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, they may be civilians, but many of them aren't exactly innocent. Those who are supporting Hezbollah (with money, votes, food, shelter, etc.), in it's attempts to kill Israeli civilians, can hardly complain if Israel accidentally kills a few of them. Similarly, those warlords in western Pakistan who offered shelter to al-Queada members in their homes can hardly complain when their homes are bombed. StuRat 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Post office for Zip Code

How can I find out the post office for a particular PO Box? For instance, I want to find out where PO Box 30740, Tampa, FL, 33633-1440 is located. - anon

Just call any post office and they can give you the street address of that Tampa Post Office, given the first 5 digits of the ZIP code. There is probably a web site that would tell you, too. StuRat 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked on the USPS web site [1], but it doesn't list an entry for that ZIP (although that is in the range of numbers you find near Tampa, FL). I suspect that branch was consolidated into another branch, and the PO boxes moved accordingly. Time to call them for more info. StuRat 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem

Can a lawyer stop the public prosecutor when he/she uses argumentum ad hominem towards the jury (namely directs the speech to feelings rather than to thought)? --Brand спойт 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Logical fallacies are the very heart and soul of legal argumentation! - Nunh-huh 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that's actually true. Logic and science take a serious beating in the courtroom. Just as Intelligent Design is a threat to science education and the Bush administration is a threat to both scientific research (on stem cells) and scientific free speech (on global warming), the legal system is also a threat to both logic and science. StuRat 01:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but I get the impression that the problem here is the jury system. Laymen are more susceptible to (legally) illogical reasoning. So wouldn't abolishing juries solve the problem? There is some talk here in the Netherlands to introduce laymen-judges (what's that called?) as assistents to 'real' judges to make the legal system more 'human' (something they have in Denmark). I've got serious doubts about that, but at least it doesn't go as far as letting a random bunch of laymen decide all by themselves on the question of guilt. DirkvdM 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In American courts the defense does have the option, typically, of skipping the jury trial and asking for a judge to rule directly. This option is rarely used because judges tend to be harsher in their rulings than juries. However, in a case with a particularly hated defendant, but weak evidence, this can be a good choice. For example, an admitted pedophile who is accused of a child murder, despite a total lack of evidence, may still be convicted by a jury, but acquitted by a judge. Any type of professional jurors would concern me that we would end up with the same rich, white, male lawyers who infest the legislature and the presidency, thus making the government even less representative than it is now. StuRat 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction: Argumentum ad hominem is "to the man," and it is most commonly heard in legislative debates and policy arguments, while argumentum ad populis is an argument to popular prejudice and "the crowd's opinion." They are both fallacies, but ad populis is most common in trials. Ad hominem is when you change the subject from the issue under debate to the person making the statement, and it can be a compliment or an insult. "What you say is attractive, and certainly moral, but not everyone can be as dedicated a pacifist as you, Jane, and therefore we have to allow for shooting attackers" would be an ad hominem, as the discussion changes from "self-defense" to "Jane's character." Ad populis is the use of stereotype, hated out-groups, and the like, and lawyers like to employ it. Even when there are "trials in the media," you'll see ad populis (the famous cover of Newsweek Magazine where O. J. Simpson's photo had been darkened), and it will also be used in political campaigns (pictures of John Kerry edited to show him sitting "next to" Jane Fonda, even though he never did). In fact, judges can and do stop ad hominem arguments, most of the time. They're called "badgering the witness" and "putting the victim on trial" (e.g. in a rape case, where "prior actions" of the victim are brought up or how she was dressed, etc.). Geogre 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, badgering the witness is a behavior (harassment), not an argument, and putting the viction on trial is a standard, acceptable legal tactic. In rape trials, certain details of prior sexual activity are statutorily prohibited from being introduced, just as certain aspects of the accused's life (prior unrelated criminal convictions) are. But barring such specific prohibitions, such argumentation is the mainstay of courtroom speech. A judge cannot prohibit arguments on the basis of being ad hominem, because ad hominem arguments are perfectly acceptable in a court of law. This is especially true in closing arguments. - Nunh-huh 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't get into it too much, but the opposing advocate has the right to object for "relevance," and the judge, if impartial, will often grant the objection. There is a thin line between character, which is subject to trial (to demonstrate mens rea) and simple ad hominem. For example, in an election it would be appropriate to mention that your opponent took money from Jack Abramoff to mobilize fundamentalist voters against gambling in one state to protect the gambling interests in another, as you're demonstrating that the person lacks ethos for the argument. Does the speaker have expertise and public concern and a good character? Well, you can question that, just as you can question whether a victim has a reason to lie or a witness to distort the truth. A character trait that has no bearing on the likelihood of a criminal act should be objected to and sustained. It's not as fine a line as it sounds like, but everyone caught in politics will claim that revealing his indiscretions is an ad hominem, and the opponents will always claim that it's establishing "character" or "values." Geogre 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

uncertainty records

how come it says on guinness world records that the first halo is the best-selling xbox game and yet halo 2 has sold nearly twice as many. halo 2 came out in 2004 so you'd think they'd update it. my question is, how often does guinness world records update their records? if you don't know do u know where i could find out?--Jk31213 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shazam! Guinness Book Of World Records. I would suspect that they haven't got an official confirmation on the Halo 2 sales numbers, or have a lag in their confirmation process. Anyhow, that link will help you get started on some further research. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you guys (wikipedia) sure do have a number that happens to be 7.4 million. Are you guys more reliable than Guinness World Records now or what? If you are then in total, I've wasted a good $210.00 on buying those damn books.--Jk31213 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not more reliable, but we are more up-to-date. Skittle 16:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable or not, I'd say you've wasted a good $210.00 on those damn books. I wouldn't bother with those silly books. They're okay for kids messing around in the school library because it's cold or raining outside, but really, what use is information on the longest strand of spaghetti, the biggest mince pie or the most beans eaten with a tooth pick? --130.161.182.77 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For something as volatile as video game sales records I would not expect any printed media to be up to date for long. I do hope you didn't purchase the books just for things like that, because there are other ways to get that kind of information. --Fastfission 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli modern history for dummies : UN partition plan and other matters

I have been going to Wikipedia and the net in general, but I can't find a decent answer for these basic questions. I will enumerate :

1. Did the UN partition plan (1947) imply the expelling of members of one group in the part 'assigned' to the other part?

2. Did the UN partition plan (1947) envision democratic rule in both parts of the country, regardless of religion or ethnicity?

3. If so : I have heard that in both parts non Jews were the majority. So how could democratic rule establish a Jewish state in any part??

4. What exactly did David Ben Gurion do on may 14th 1948? What territory did he claim as the state of Israel? (I can't find a map of that anywhere). What kind of rule did he envision then? Dictatorship? Democracy in all of the Palestinian mandate (thus not the kingdom of Jordan) regardless of ethnicity or religion? Democracy without participation by non Jews?

I thank you,

Evilbu 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise some interesting questions. I'm sure the answer to 1 is "no" and 2 is "yes," but I'll leave it to someone with more expertise to say for sure. As far as 3 is concerned, the Jewish state proposed in the partition plan did have a slight but growing Jewish majority. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel announced on May 14 did not go into territorial questions. Regarding its position on the Arabs, it included this paragraph: "WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Finally the truth is made clear, Mwalcoff! Much better than I have ever been able to make it, no matter how hard I tried. Keep up the good work! Loomis 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Loomis, but all I did was copy and paste the relevant section of the Israeli declaration of independence. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I congratulate you nonethless. Often times the truth is deceptively obvious, yet mysteriously absent from public consciousness. Nonetheless, I thank you for making a point that I have to this point tried in vain to make. Loomis 02:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, get real. He quoted the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Of course you're going to agree with that. And that's not a truth but an opinion. Once again, you can't see the difference. DirkvdM 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, I thought you were ignoring me, Dirk? In any case, it's not just the document that I'm applauding (after all, a document or a declaration isn't worth a damn thing unless it's actually acted upon...as a great example, take Arafat's "declaration" that he renounced violence and accepted the existence of the State of Israel...only for some reason he couldn't bear to say these same words in Arabic or actually do anything to stop his people, who loved him so, from killing Israelis). It's the fact that over the past 58 years, this particular portion (as all others) of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel has indeed been acted upon. For 58 years, Arab Israelis have indeed enjoyed "full and equal citizenship and due representation in all...[their] provisional and permanent institutions".

But PLEASE Dirk, I'm begging you, PLEASE, for once PRESENT A COUNTER-ARGUMENT! PLEASE at least TRY to engage in some sort of debate for once and prove me wrong. I've been wrong many, many, many times and I've always been the first to admit it. If I'm wrong here I'll gladly admit it as well. In fact I LOOK FORWARD to you proving me wrong. But PLEASE! You're no fun! All you ever do is take a quick jab at something I've said, and then scurry off, only to reappear to take another quick jab at something else! That's no fun at all. :-( Loomis 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding questions 1 and 2, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 called for democratic governments to be established and for minority rights to be respected in both states. -- Mwalcoff 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, so it's fair to say the three first questions are solved. 1.No. 2. Yes 3. Jews did have majority in the first part.

4 : well how weird is that? No explicit Israeli boundaries? An invitation to all work together does not strictly imply democratic rule by everyone?

I think "full and equal citizenship and due representation" clearly means they were planning to provide full civil rights to Arabs. Indeed, in the first Israeli elections in early 1949, a few Arabs were elected to the constituent assembly that became the first Knesset. (However, Arab towns remained under martial law until 1966.) -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize now I should have asked a fifth question :

5. Did the UN partition plan strictly enforce immigration laws : Jews are allowed to migrate to the Jewish part but not to the Arab part? (Or did they say : every (as discussed : democratically run) part can just vote on immigration laws, but the discussed numbers of Jews and Arabs would only naturally imply a yes on Jewish influx in the Jewish and a no in the other?) Evilbu 11:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The partition plan would have prohibited Jews from moving to the proposed Arab state and Arabs from moving to the proposed Jewish state without special permission until governments in those states set up their own immigration laws. But remember that the partition plan was never put into effect. -- Mwalcoff 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, Mwalcoff, in your answer to the fourth question you almost seem to be implying that "full and equal citizenship and due representation" was the initial plan for Arabs in Israel, and was even tried on a "one-off" type basis back in 1949, only to be ultimately abandoned.

Of course you're aware that in the current 120 member Knesset, 10 members are Arab. "Full and equal citizenship and due representation" is apparently not a meaningless and disingenuous piece of propaganda in an almost 60 year old document, rather, apparently, it remains as a living and essential cornerstone in Israeli Constitutional Law to this day. Is there something I'm missing? Loomis 00:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

police commissioner qualifications

What are the exact qualifications to be a police commissioner? How would somebody go about running for the position and if you can't run for it how do you get apointed?

Please responed to ... email address removed

Thank you Joshua J White

Which exact police force/country are you asking about? Even if this was specified, there is no definitive requirement, it would depend on the needs of the police force requiring a commissioner. I would imagine you would need to be of a very senior rank in a police force (not necessarily the same one), and demonstrate excellent management skills. See Police commissioner for some examples around the world, and if you look at the individuals holding those titles you might be able to get an idea of their career paths. --Canley 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2

Roof on this building.

Please look at the roof of the building featured in this article. Yakushi-ji

Does anyone know what kind of roof this is called? Thanks.

Also, while on the topic, what are those sliding doors commonly found in dojos and other Japanese houses called?

Nevermind, I found it: Shoji. Excuse my ineptitude.

--69.138.61.168 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the roof is called, but in case it helps, the building is a pagoda. --Allen 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out our article on Japanese architecture - looks like there's some good info in there on roofs! Tony Fox (arf!) 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you mention that, because I had already scoured that article and found nothing. Judging from the edit history, I think the sentences regarding the roofs has been added since I looked at it! --69.138.61.168 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Painter

I need to know what famous painter was exhibited in the met only twice and once between 1950-1985 Larry

To clarify for those who, like myself, thought he meant exhibited in the Met he probably meant the Metropolitan Museum of Art. AllanHainey 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an Abstract Expressionist like Jackson Pollock or a painter whose works are so entirely owned by another museum or private collector that the Met couldn't get an exhibit. There are a ton of folks who qualify under both sets of criteria. There are a lot of "famous" painters, including Da Vinci and Brueghel and Rembrandt. Geogre 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POLITICTS

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY: --196.21.218.17 07:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)PIMANI

PoliSci concerns learning not to shout within a nation to get your way, while IntRel concerns learning not to shout on an international level. :-) StuRat 09:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Poly-ticts is a proliferation of unconscious motions. Poly-tincts is a proliferation of colors. Poly-tits is a proliferation of misspellings for "tots," or small children. (Politics is the study of the operation of a state, of a polis, while international relations is an umbrella term for the dealings nations have with one another at a given time.) Geogre 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Poly-tits could also refer to Anne Boleyn, who is supposed to have had a supernumerary breast. JackofOz 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it refers to many small birds? --Fastfission 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course! I should have thought of that. Here, I only see tufted tits. The great tits are in the UK, apparently. Geogre 11:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As are the blue tits. It's the cold weather. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to extra fingers? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics comes from the greek "poly" for many, and "tic" for blood-sucking parasite. Sorry for the insult folks, had to let that one out --198.125.178.207 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it ! StuRat 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is Peterborough Lift Lock

Greetings:

Does anyone know what the address of Peterborough Lift Lock Peterborough Lift Lock? I need it in order to get directions from my home to Lift Lock on Google Maps.

Regards,

Shuo Xiang 17:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Army

I was wondering what is the Lebanesse army's stance on the conflict in the middle east? From what I gather it is Hezbollah against israel. However, Lebanesse civilians are getting killed. Does the government of Lebannon consider these casualties collateral damage? or is there some contingency plan they have to counterstrike? Or somewhere in between?

Thanks!!!

As you can imagine we here in Wikipedia are not a member of the Lebanese goverment, nor do we participate in the meetings of the Lebanese military staff. Therefore we cannot answer such questions, but only speculate. If you are really keen to know about the stance of the Lebanese army, you must ask them directly. Either that, or ask Mossad, who usually knows alot about such matters :). Flamarande 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Lebanese government is being very very careful not to do anything threatening towards Israel. I don't think they want to give Israel an excuse to escalate operations; a definitive act of war by Lebanon would enable an eager Israel to strike Lebanese army targets that are undoubtably supplying, supporting, and sheltering (the three S's!) Hezbollah fighters. --198.125.178.207 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"undoubtably" has to be backed with clear evidence, and not speculation or propaganda. If Israel had such evidence they would have shown it (perhaps not?). And Israel has attacked several Lebanese army bases allready, they don't need any excuses to attack supply depots of the Hezzbollah anywhere. As a matter of fact, any mistake (also known as collateral damage) in the bombardments gets the "It was a Hezzbollah base" excuse allready. Flamarande 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but if Lebanon were to commit an act of war, they would need no excuses. And of course you are correct, there is no clear evidence - no one seems have any. But as a matter of common sense - why wouldn't the lebanese army be supplying Hezbollah, at least in some capacity, if not in major ways? Hezbollah is represented in the Lebanese government! --Bmk 03:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that war with Israel could be brought on by such actions, which would almost surely cause the fragile Lebanese government to fall. I would guess that there are factions of the military, likely in Shia areas, which support the terrorists, but that the Lebanese military as a whole does not. The Christians, Druze, and Sunni Muslims in Lebanon aren't likely to support a Shiite terrorist organization like Hezbollah. StuRat 05:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you StuRat,I think the reason why the Lebanese government not supporting Hizbollah is they are afraid of the great power behind Israel no doubt US (use common sense who doesnt want to save his family, friends and country), they are not capable of standing against US. One more thing please define the word Terrorism for me, Hizbollah is fighting for the whole country ie. Lebanon,have lost many souls saving innocent people's lives(who have no clue why have they put in that deadly situation) from Israel bomb attacks, and you are calling them terrorists!!!!! I think the time has come when people should relize who the real TERRORIST is. [common sense user]

this unsigned statement was done by User:82.194.62.22 Flamarande 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)This entry was also deleted by the same user only to be restored. Is he afraid to sign his own "name"? Flamarande 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My def of terrorism is those trying to maximize civilian deaths. Hezbollah would like to kill every last Jew, if they could, and say so publicly. They also want to maximize Lebanese deaths by hiding among women and children, and thus hope to get world opinion on their side. They have been far more successful at this than at killing Jews. They could have used their funding from Iran and Syria to build bomb shelters, if they really wanted to protect the Lebanese people, but this is not what they want at all. Instead, they use their funding to provoke war and thus endanger the Lebanese. Israel, on the other hand, could kill every last Lebanese (with nukes, if necessary), but this is not their goal. My def does allow for state terrorism (genocide), such as a government setting up death camps or killing fields, but this is not what Israel is doing, is it ? StuRat 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Once more into the breach dear friends... We go again into the realms of propaganda. :) Reading the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict it seems that Hezzbollah began this whole mess by making a raid into Israeli territory, killing three soldiers and kidnapping two others. Hezzbolah is a NGO (a non govermental organization) and therefore doesn't have any right to wage war. A NGO who wages war (by killing and kidnapping) is by definition a terrorist organization. And NO, the fact they are opposing the advance of the IDF into Lebanese teritory does NOT turn them into a legal Lebanese army. If the Hezbollah wasn't hiding amongst the Lebanese civilian population, the IDF wouldn't attack Lebanon at all in the first place. And this is ignoring all the past raids made by Hezzbollah from Lebanon. And they are not trying to save innocent civilians (that's what the medical staff, firemen, and ppl digging victims out of the rubble are doing) they are fighting against the IDF.

A couple of Polish postal employes resisted the German invasion in WWII. Eventually they surrendered and they were shoot (it was a legal execution - they were not members of the Polish army). Now a organization with the past of the Hezzbollah is not even closely as innocent as a couple of postal workers.

A state like Israel on the other hand is legally entitled to wage war, a state has a monopoly upon violence (or should have). Therefore the IDF (which is a part of the state - i.e. a official and legal army) which bombards several Lebanese villages, towns, and cities with extreme predjuice, killing hundereds of civilians (including women and children, let's not hide that fact) is nevertheless waging a legal war (since when is war legal or illegal?). In the worst case (in which they target locations being 100% sure no terrorists are present, only civilians - good luck in proving that) some IDF officers are guilty of commiting war crimes, and not terrorism.

Everybody knows that the USA is backing Israel, and Hezzbollah knew that before they made their raids. What is your point? The US military is spread way too thin and unless the whole situation really hits the fan they won't interfere.

So to sum it up: NGO waging war = terrorist organization. Goverments waging an official war (through an Army, or Intelligence agents) = legal war, or war crime at worst. Covert agents of a goverment commiting assassinations, bombings, etc = criminal actions in the country these actions happened, or State terrorism (the last term is quite controversial). Flamarande 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande, you've now responded on at least several occasions: "ask Mossad, not Wikipedia". Does Mossad have a website that I don't know of where such questions can be asked? If so, perhaps this website even has an FAQ section! :-) Loomis 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, would be nice tough :). Sincerly, sometimes some users ask questions that are impossible for us here in Wikipedia or even the common media to know. I could answer with: "Only God knows." but I dont like that phrase. The rumor goes that Mossad knows alot about terrorist organizations in particular and the Midddle East in general. Add to that the old joke: "Only God knows everything and He works for Mossad." I decided to answer unanswerable questions with "ask Mossad, not Wikipedia" Flamarande 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Flamarande. I was just curious. Take care! Loomis 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

I was looking at The Iron Horse's page on Wiki and under awards there is the following entry:

  League MVP: 1927 (award discontinued, and usually not considered a true MVP award) 

I am wondering why it is "not considered a true MVP award"? I heard a small reference to that season on a sports radio show and it had really peaked my interest. By all accounts it is one of the greatest seasons ever; 47/175/.373!!! I cant seem to find anything hinting towards any controversy or anything.

Thanks!!!

According to Baseball-reference.com, the current MVP award, given by the Baseball Writers Association of America, began in 1931. In the 20s, the AL itself had an MVP but disallowed people from winning it twice. Babe Ruth had won the award in 1923 and thus was ineligible in 1927, when he hit .356 with 60 home runs. If you think that can be explained better in the Lou Gehrig article, consider editing it. -- Mwalcoff 23:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Growth in Body Art?

Are there any studies indicating an increase in the prevalence and social acceptance of body art, esp. tattoos and piercings, in the U.S. in the last 10-20 years. If so, have their been any theoretical attempts to explain this growth sociologically or anthropologically? The Body Art article had no information on this.

Thanks!

Jed Blue

Using 'body art popularity' in Google scholar comes up with 35,000 articles. You can probably find several articles in databases at your local library. Nowimnthing 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

who invented the hokey-pokey?

According to Hokey Pokey(who would have thought!) it is Larry LaPrise though that claim is disputed. Nowimnthing 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

August 3

Euroipods?

What is a Euroipod? I know it's a cliché but I am not familiar with the subject. Scienceman123 01:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another free-iPods pyramid scam. Strangely enough, the Uncyclopedia article has it pretty much spot on. EdC 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See Europid. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, don't see Europid. Apparently. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

movie industry

Can you please tell me who was the very first country to make an acctual movie —Ruth mary Hubbard

Depends what you mean by an actual movie! See History of film. If you mean the first time a film was publically exhibited to a paying audience, that goes to the French film Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory, from 1895, although a case could also be made for Blacksmith Scene, from 1893. Ziggurat 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mean first experimental movie made, perhaps it was Monkeyshines, No. 1, produced in the US in 1890 ? [2] StuRat 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If by 'actual movie' you mean with acting, the distinction with documentaries is rather blurred. I remember seeing a BBC documentary about som everuy old films that were found and restored, showing ordinary people, suggesting they were documentaries. But scenes were often choreographed and actors were put in the crowd to make themdo what they were supposed to or even to stirr thing up a bit. These were often made just for the poeple in the movies to see themsleves later that day in some nearby room (of course there weren't any movie theatres then). Alas I can't rememver the names of the two (British) filmers, so I can't look up when these films were made. But it certainly was in the very early years. DirkvdM 10:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Story of the Kelly Gang was the first feature-length film, released in 1906. It was Australian. Natgoo 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Vitriolist? vitrioliste?

Hi - I've started a page on vitriolage, but am now wondering if there's a male equivalent to vitrioleuse... Clearly there should be, though the obvious choices for the word don't really come up with anything conclusive on Google. If I start a page called Vitriolist or Vitrioliste, would that be considered original research? Thanks --Adambrowne666 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not supposed to be a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for!), so what I'd suggest you do is make vitrioleuse a redirect to vitriolage (as a related word that you can't really say much about outside of the main vitriolage article), and not worry about the male equivalent unless you can find a source that uses a word for it. Ziggurat 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Beauty, thanks Adambrowne666 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No probs! I made an addition to the article myself as well. Ziggurat 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vitrioleuse is clearly (originally) a French word, and as such the feminine form of vitrioleur. The English dictionaries I have within reach have neither word. --Lambiam^Talk 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Two-Face! Good one, would never have thought of that!

Roman Doctor

I recently watched a program on The History Channel about a Roman doctor who carried out operations in incredibly knowledgable ways. He practiced using sterile tools in his sterile hospital with rooms much like ones we have today. It is thought that he removed cataracts and attempted brain surgery. The doctors name escapes my mind and it would be very much appreciated if someone could provide me with his name. Thank you.

Galen. David Sneek 07:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you.

George Washington as a Mason

Does anybody know where the statue of George Washington wearing his Mason's apron and stuff is housed. I've seen the statue in a documentary or two but can't remember exactly where the thing sits?

Deb T

Could it be statue of George Washington at the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, VA? --Lambiam^Talk 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

lithograph

I have an original colored lithograph signed and number.I just want to know anything about it,the arthur,how much,if any,it's worth.It's called "DEER FAMILY".The arthur is named Bender.The certificate of anthenticity registry # is 20203-140 This is the info that is on the back of it. Arthur Bender was born in 1940 in New Jersey.He attended the art students legue in New York.He later moved to Nebraska where he continued to paint western and americain scenes.His graphics and oils are in many museum collections. It also says 134/200. collier art corporations of Los Angeles California The sceen is 2 deer walking by some trees. Please give me any info you can find.Thank you so so so much!!! M

The author is really named Arthur : is it predestination ? --DLL 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

is darwins theory against Islam and christianity

Are Darwins theories on evolutions against Islam and Christianity. since Darwin correctly explains the evolution of Humans from other species, goin back from great Apes to fish. and he has archaelogical evidence in his support too. there are also vestiges in our bodies (like male mammaes, apendix etc.) to support his theories. And christianity and Islam, both say that God created earth around 3100 BC in 6 days. moreover, they claim that Adam was directly sent to earth for eating a fruit from tree of knowledge.

my second question relates to the answer that i got in 7.5 i.e.[3] of hen being Halal in certain circumstances. doesnt it mean that in case dogs and other canines if are fed non meat products throughout their life (dont worry u'll find plenty of such veg. dogs in India), and are slained according to Dabiha in the name of Allah facing quine Qibla. do they qualify of being halal in that case. nids 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The theory that men evolved from apes is not from Darwin. Darwin proposed that birds evolved their beaks over many generations to better get to their food. He attributed this to natural selection. In the Snopes Monkey Trial (it was Snopes, wasn't it?), a Christian lawyer argued that Darwin is wrong because men did not come from monkeys. That argument has stuck even though it isn't part of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

As for, "is it against Islam and Christianity", the direct answer is "no". Natural selection does not attempt to answer "who created the first life on Earth?" It only contemplates how life on Earth evolves over time. Also, there are scientific Christians who noticed that the order of the appearance of life in Genesis closely matches the order that evolutionists claim. So, what if God invented evolution as a tool to create all the animals from one starting point? Some Christians argue that it is impossible. God couldn't have invented evolution. He made the animals out of clay and they just appeared. A God who understands science is blasphemy. As for Islam, you will find highly similar arguments.

I should point out that my grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher and I was raised in church - Sunday Morning, Sunday evening, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Friday night potluck, Saturday bible camp - can't get enough religion in ya! --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Scopes, not Snopes. --LarryMac 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! No wonder I couldn't find it. I've evolved into having a very terrible memory. Wait, no - God made me with a very terrible memory. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of different kinds of Christianity and Islam, and some are more sensible than others. Fundamentalists, who take their scriptures literally, have enormous problems coming to terms not only with Darwin, but with a lot of scientific research, not to speak of the arts and most other areas of human endeavour.--Shantavira 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is not "against" religion. It just happens to be a fact that some but not all religious people find impossible to reconcile with their beliefs. There are many religious people who have no problem treating their holy books as allegorical, and can still believe in a religion and in evolution. Personally, I think they're compartmentalizing a bit much. In any case, you will see little of this in the media, at least in the U.S., where religion and evolution are often portayed as two warring camps, with all religious people being creationists, and scientists portrayed as being split on whether evolution is true when there is no such split in the scientific community (apparently this result of a desire to show "balance" by presenting "both sides", but actually having the opposite result giving much lipservice to an incredibly vocal fringe minority). See Project Steve.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are Islam and Christianity against Darwin ? Then they're against themselves. God, by an act of pure benevolence and beauty, put evolution in the world instead of trying to imitate man, who would have desperately molded clay ... without putting any spirit in his creatures. Spirit is the real thing : sacred books are only for a time when people would not catch the evolution methods.

Learn how-tos and you'll grow a better faith. Teach how to read also : In the book, only Adam was made of clay, while beasts were just made. --DLL 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, Darwin did cover the evolution of humans from apes - not in The Origin of Species, but in a later book, The Descent of Man - and suggested, before the fossils that support this were discovered, that our earliest hominid ancestors arose in Africa. --Nicknack009 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

when i m asking about religion, i obviously mean the most fundamentalists of christians and muslims, for whom bible and quran are the words of god and allah respectively, (even when many have been proven to be false). as for User:Harvestman comments, they(read christians and muslims) may be against themselves, but they had openly denounced his theories on evolutions claiming it to blasphemy. and what about the differences in the birth of first human according to science(i.e. about 1.7 million years ago) and according to Bible and Quran(about 3100 B.C.)

Dear friend: Allah is the Årabic word for God, so you can't logically write "god and allah respectively" because they both mean the same thing. GeorgeLouis 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to use "God" for the Christian conception of a single god, and "Allah" as the Muslim conception of a single god. The two concepts aren't quite identical, but do have similarities. StuRat 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask any Christian Arab, Allah is the Arabic word for God. Period. As for religious differences; remember that the Muslims believe in Christianity and see no differences. Your view that there are differences is your view based on your particular brand of Christianity and should be qualified that way. A Muslim would consider that blasphemous. -LambaJan 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims believe in Christianity and see no differences" ? No, there is a huge difference, in that all Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, and Muslims do not. Your view that Muslims believe all the same things as Christians is blasphemous, not mine. StuRat 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You took my comment out of context. It meant that they see no differences between the Christian God and the Muslim one. They may have differing opinions of the exact station and/or mission of Jesus, as even many different forms of Christianity do, but that is not what the conversation was about. -LambaJan 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Christian sect which doesn't believe Jesus is the son of God. Please provide examples. StuRat 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That idea that the universe is only 5100 years old is wrong not only according to the Theory of Evolution, but just about every other branch of science as well. Geologists can point to radioactive decay, plate tectonics, deposition rates and erosion rates to tell that the Earth is much older. Astrophysicists can point to the red shift and stellar cycles to show the same thing. Archeologists and anthropologists can point to carbon dating of relics much older than this. Dinosaur experts would laugh at any such suggestion. The evidence just goes on and on and on. Those who think the universe started in 3100 BC are just plain wrong, no way around it. StuRat 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that while compatible with a belief in God, science is incompatible with much of what's described in the Bible and Quran, like the biblical flood. StuRat 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

edit point 1

but i would also like to point out that my second question still remains unanswered.(about dog being halal). waitin for replies. nids 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your second question, it's almost totally unrelated, so should be posted separately StuRat 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The flood story could find an historical origin now that we found clear (not salty) water mud in the bottom of the Black sea. As for the historicity of the Bible : it was true when written. But our knowledge, if it is not greater today, is just different. Moses & Muhammad would write differently today! --DLL 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is evidence for a large flood, but not for one covering the entire planet, as the Bible claimed. They apparently just made that part up. StuRat 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Semantic headache: The Bible said it covered the "world". Modern Christians translate that to the planet. At the time it was written, the "world" did not include much of the planet. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

fine, i shall post my second question separately. but is this the common consensus that Darwin's theory on evolution and various scientific theories are against Bible and Quran. nids 06:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "against" anything. That is an odd way to describe a theory. Put it this way: There are obviously certain elements in Darwin's theory of evolution that are at variance with the story of creation as literally described in the Bible. (I am not familiar with the Quran.) I would add that it's a rather fruitless to try to compare scientific theories with religion; they have completely different starting points.--Shantavira 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

if i m right, u r just using Euphemisms to appease the fundamentalists, and i m a bit direct in condemning them, as i feel what is wrong is wrong and it must be condemned.

nids 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re science being incompatible with Noah / flood, that's not strictly accurate. See this Wikipedia entry. Fact is, because science doesn't know everything it cannot disprove everything. Inconvenient, isn't it? --Dweller 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While nobody disputes that large floods have happened, a flood that covered all the land on Earth and killed off everyone and everything but Noah's family and animals most definitely did not happen. Such a flood would have left geological evidence all over the world, and in a lack of genetic diversity in every animal species on Earth. StuRat 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Errrr... "definitely"? --Dweller 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, definitely ? StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am speaking from a Christian perspective. This page might be of interest to you. See particularly the "Top 10" questions listed down the side. The answer to your question basically depends on who you ask. If you ask me, yes, they are incompatible, at least in their present form. There are a number of conflicts between Genesis and geo/bio evolution. In Genesis, the earth appears before the sun, for example. There are those who say that the Genesis story is "allegorical", however such a statement is not really defensible from a logical point of view. Would God have any reason to tell Moses to say something other than the way it was? (In other words, if God worked through evolution, would there be any reason to say otherwise?) Especially if the way it actually happened would be later "found out"? It's not really sensible. People who say it's allegorical also tend not to read the Bible very much... BenC7 01:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're putting our minds and knowledge into those people. You need to understand where they were and what was going on. If Sennacherib sacked Jerusalem, thereby conquering the kingdom of Judah, the Jews of the region would more than likely have embraced Assyrian pagan gods just like the majority of the citizens of the kingdom of Israel did two decades earlier; and this was six to nine centuries after Moses! With this paper-thin belief in God needing to be corrected why would God skew the focus of the people by delivering more than they could understand about such issues and have them waste their energies trying to understand something they had no framework for when their real important task was to solidify a group of believers to His monotheistic religion? Seems like allegory is a good option to me. -LambaJan 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You've made two assumptions: that God was only writing for the people alive at the time, and didn't have the forethought to think of coming generations, and that God's goal is to get everyone to believe in Him. If that was the case, just showing Himself would do the trick, no need to lie about the origin of the universe. StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not make the assumption that God wrote only for those people and didn't think of the coming generations. That goal was essential. If it wasn't met the coming generations wouldn't even be reading or caring about His words, except for historical interest. This conversation wouldn't be happening. I also don't think that His only goal is for people to believe in Him, but even if it were, that would be a very temporary solution. He'd have to keep doing it every few generations for people to not discredit someone's account as superstition or fable. -LambaJan 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And what's wrong with God making an appearance for every generation ? Is it too much work ? Does he just lack the energy ? Maybe some vitamin C would pick him up a bit. :-) StuRat 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can deny the science, believe the science or try to reconcile the two (I recommend Aviezer's book for this approach, "In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science" (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1990). In this third methodology, most problems can be addressed by a more scholarly approach to the precise translation, paying attention to the inherent difficulties that could be raised by even a child looking at the standard KJV Genesis text.

Some issues of interest that an average child could ask: How do you have "days" of creation without a sun to measure a day by? How do you have light and dark before the sun is created? How do you get trees growing before the sun is created? and so on... Then there are more intriguing deeper questions like when was time created?

Every argument on either side of this issue has plenty of counter-arguments. There are no truly "winning" arguments; if there were, everyone would agree. --Dweller 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

how will u defend for the creation on 4004 BC. when it is commonly accepted in science community to be much older than that. nids 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

everyone who tried to reconcile the science and religion has failed. including muslim states which tried to find the bridge between reasoning and Islam. u cant have religion and science on the same side. if one is east other is west. nids 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i get the satisfactory answer to my question from stuRat and BenC7.nids 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

edit point 2

As a Jew, I can't speak for Islam or Christianity. I'm not even sure if the questioner is at all interested in my view as s/he specifically asked for only the views of Christians and Muslims. Nonetheless, I'll present my view (which is not necessarily a particuliarly "Jewish" perspective, just my own personal view).

In my view, once one believes in a truly "omnipotent" God, as I do, one seems to necessarily believe in a God that transcends all laws of physics, time, space and matter. An "omnipotent" God is, by definition, not constrained by such laws. If He was, He wouldn't be omnipotent.

Therefore the whole discussion seems to be moot. Reconciling evolution with creationism is moot. I actually find it particularly silly when religious people try to find "evidence", or "scientific explanations" for such biblical accounts as the great flood, or Moses' parting of the sea. "Religious scientists" seem to try there best to explain how if the wind was blowing this way or that way, at this or that particular point in time, theoretically, the splitting of the sea can be scientifically rationalized.

To me, the whole whole effort is a pure fool's errand. If you believe in a truly omnipotent God, the whole discussion is moot. A "truly" omnipotent God can simply split the sea at will. No need for "scientific" or "meteorological" explanations.

As for reconciling evolution with creationism, take a moment and think. According to the Bible God created trees in one day. He isn't said to have planted seeds and waited for them to grow into trees, He simply created full grown trees. Now, if on the day God supposedly created trees, one were to chop down one of those trees and count its rings, one would conclude that that tree was, say, 50 years old, as it clearly appears to have gone through 50 years of growth. Yet according to the Bible, that tree was created on that particular day, the day God created trees. So how old is the tree? Would that tree be 50 years old as science would explain, or is it merely a day old? Well, in a sense, both.

So if one believes that God created the Earth some 5766 years ago, He surely wouldn't have created an earth in its most primordial form and then wait a few billion years for it to develop. He would have created an Earth with trees and birds and fish and animals, all apparently evolved from previous species.

So does evolution contradict creation? In my opinion, not really. Did humans evolve from more primitive primates? In a sense yes, and in a sense no. Did dinosaurs once roam the Earth? Again, in a sense yes, and in a sense no. I know what I'm saying may be very difficult to grasp, but all I'm really saying is that I believe that God, being omnipotent, created an Earth with a past. Is this true? Maybe. Am I simply insane for having such a strange, difficult view to grasp? Probably! :) Loomis 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so hard to grasp. No-one envisages that Adam and Eve were created as babies. If you believe in Genesis then they were created as young adults. Similarly, a "young adult" world was created. --Dweller 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But saying God created a world with skeletons of dinosaurs that never really existed is rather silly. Why we He do that ? Just to screw with future scientists ? We would also have to conclude, if God just creates false evidence like this right and left, that there is really little point in science at all, since we can no longer trust anything we see to be true. This also violates Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation is the best. I would definitely argue that the simplest explanation for a skeleton is that it is left over from a dead animal. StuRat 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Adam have a bellybutton? --Dweller 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And if not, where did he store his lint ? StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer StuRat's question, I simply think God (or whatever power(s) may be) was giving humans something to hypothetically "play" with. He probably put dinosaur bones in the Earth as a joke to see what we'd make of it, and honestly, looking through time, I'd be laughing, what with the myths of cyclops and all sorts of weird explanations. I think about it sort of like getting a pet fish. We put in little fake rocks and all sorts of things, even though they aren't technically necessary for the fish to live, so it has something to swim around. Perhaps that's what all this stuff is - God knew we'd need something to exercise our puny little brains, and gave us science.

I've never believed that science and religion conflict. They're different, sure, but they can live in harmony. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

edit point 3

By religion in this post, i strongly mean abramical religions as they are the ones with the same faith and most different from science. i cant understand kaekealani views, as you cannot claim both science and christianity/islam to be right. either you accept that dinosaurs existed(as pointed out by science) or you believe that abrahmic god implanted the bones of dinausaurs in earth in around 5700 BC. how are you saying that abrahmic religions and science are in no conflict zone. what will you say for the scopes trial.nids 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe in both an Abrahamic religion and science. I do not see them as being in conflict. I enjoy the term 'creation by evolution'. I like to think of Genisis as a rough outline, chapter titles perhaps, with no particular timeline or specifics filled in. Sure, it says what was done on which day, but it never really goes into how it was done or actually defines 'day'. Before the sun was created, what was a day? The rotation of the galaxy with respect to the center of the universe? lol. Somehow I think God is outside of time and was just relating the matter in a way that was helpful to the audience. -LambaJan 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever length you choose for a "day", it's still wrong, as some of those events called "days" took many times as long as others. So, where Genesis isn't so vague as to make verification impossible, it's frequently just plain wrong. And why did God think it would be a good idea to give out misinformation, exactly ? StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you think we're disagreeing a lot more than I think we are. If God is not limited by space and time, as would be the case considering His creating these things. He must've been around beforehand. What's the problem then? the order? Heaven, earth, light; the atmosphere; dry land, plants; sun, moon, stars; fish and birds; land animals, people. The only thing that seems out of sync is the sun, moon and stars; but from an earth perspective, that was probably when the atmosphere cleared up enough for the plants to see them. lol. You know, some scientists have proposed doing something similar to Mars. So, I don't see what the problem is. The important thing for the time was for people to know that God created these things. It all sounds really stoopid when you characterize it as 'misinformation'. I think there's really a lot more similarities than differences and the majority of the differences are semantic. It's actually pretty amazing that there's not more semantic differences between Genesis and science considering the history it went through to get here. -LambaJan 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically the only parts Genesis actually got right are the obvious ones, like that people couldn't have existed before the Earth, or they would have been just floating around in space. So, Genesis shows absolutely no evidence of having been written by anybody with any insight into the beginning of the universe. Rather, it looks like it was written by people, and people who weren't all that bright, either, or they would have figured out that plants can't exist without light, etc. StuRat 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's go through the order of creation day by day:

1) Heavens and Earth were created "in the beginning". The "heavens", meaning the universe, I assume, are at least 14 billion years old, while the Earth is only 4.3 billion years old. So, saying they were created on the same "day", both "in the beginning", isn't right. Formless "waters", and "light and dark" are also said to exist on the first day. How light and dark exist in the absence of the Sun and stars is a mystery. Apparently, whoever wrote Genesis didn't understand that all the light during the day comes from the Sun.

Ever heard of "Big Bang"? Imagine that happened without light? --Dweller 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose some light came from the Big Bang for a while, but that light had long ago faded away by the time the Earth came into existence, which is what they called "the beginning". Also, the authors didn't envision a Big Bang, so where did they think all this light was coming from (before the Sun and stars were created) ? StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bible also doesn't say "all light during the day". Light comes from places other than the sun. BenC7 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At night it comes from the stars and Moon (reflected from the Sun). And none of these things yet existed, according to Genesis. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

2) The sky was then created, with the odd description of "the waters above the expanse". I'm guessing that the author was thinking "water is blue, and the sky is blue, so the sky must be made of water". This shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the author.

Ever heard of atmospheric vapour? They've even (apparently) found ice on Mars. But this nitpicking is ultimately fruitless. You won't convince a single Creationist and they won't convince you. --Dweller 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some water vapor in the air, but air itself is definitely not "waters above the expanse", that's just a completely incorrect way to describe it. Imagine a science test where you listed the composition of air that way. I see an F in your future. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making an assumption of what the author was thinking, then criticizing the assumption. You are criticizing yourself! BenC7 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the statements that it's all "allegory", that is also making an assumption as to what they were thinking, too. When you have things that make absolutely no sense when taken literally, you are then forced to try to figure out what the heck they were thinking. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3) Then land was created and land plants. Land would have existed before water, however, so the order is wrong here. Also, aquatic plants (which don't seem to be listed at all, a major oversight) would have predated land plants. Some land plants are also dependent on animals, such as flowering plants which need bees to pollinate them, and berries which require birds or animals to eat them in order to disperse their seeds. Also, as was already mentioned, you can't have plants without the Sun.

4) Then night and day, seasons, days, years, Sun, Moon, and stars. Stars have a variety of ages, from the beginning of the universe to quite recent, so weren't all created at one time. The Sun and Moon also are as old as the Earth, so that part is wrong. The Moon also seems to be described as giving off light, when it only reflects sunlight, a fact apparently not evident to the author.

5) Then fish and birds. Birds came after land animals however, not before. The author messed this one up.

6) Then land animals and man. Land animals probably predate man by a billion years, so saying they were all created on the same "day" is quite a stretch. At this point man is said to have been created in "our" image. The author apparently forgets that there is only supposed to be one god, they should have hired an editor. StuRat 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that current scientific thought is right, and thus anything else is not right. I'm sure that the science of any period in history was thought to be right at the time. You can't know with certainty something that you weren't there to observe, although you present it as though it is certain. But the evidence that we have today can be interpreted in more than one way. Not everyone who believes the Bible is ignorant of current scientific thought.

Remember that this question started with "are the Bible and science incompatible ?" (paraphrased). Thus, start by assuming either one is correct, and see if it then contradicts the other. We could do the reverse, and assume that the Bible is right (although this might be tricky where it contradicts itself). We would then end up with, "If the Bible is literally correct, then all of science is wrong, and all scientific evidence, such as dinosaur bones, was planted by God to confuse us." StuRat 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That animals existed long before people is not just "current theory", it's well established by many different branches of science, from geographic strata layers, fossil records, radioactive dating, genetic studies, morphology, etc. There are always some "bleeding edge" theories which may be questioned, like string theory, for example, but not such basic facts as other land animals having existed before people. StuRat

I'll also mention that Jesus did not seem to have any problem with Genesis. He did miracles. He raised the dead. Have you done any of these things? No. Who will I believe? I wonder. BenC7 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I could certainly claim to do them, just as Jesus did. Note that at the time, it was common practice for religious leaders of all religions to "perform miracles". The naive public would fall for just about anything, then. Even now, a good portion of the public will fall for anything. An example of another religion using this technique is when the high priest of Egypt turned his staff into two snakes. Moses is then supposed to have tuned his into a bigger snake that ate the other two, but are we supposed to think that the Egyptian snakes were a trick while Moses' snake was a miracle ? Especially knowing that Moses was raised by the Egyptians, I see it as far more likely that he knew how to do the trick, and was just smart enough to get himself a bigger snake. Similarly, the arc of the covenant appears to have been a large lead-acid battery, suitable for making weak sparks, to convince people it contained the "power of God". It was apparently kept in total darkness so the sparks would look more impressive than they really were. This technology also came from the Egyptians, who had similar devices. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So, my whole point in debunking the order of creation is to point out that, contrary to what creationists claim, it does not include "incredible insight into the origin of the universe, proving only God could have written it". On the contrary, the only parts that are actually correct are common sense. Any info that people of the time would not have known is completely wrong. Sort of implies it was written by the people of the time, not God, doesn't it ? The same is true of the rest of the Bible, but I don't have time to discuss the whole thing here. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with that giant heading ===Darwin continued starting with Loomis===? Wiki is starting to get a bit weird, and I don't particularly like the new "day by day" format that replaced the old weakly one.

In any case, photosynthesis is just another aspect of science that God, by definition, can transcend. As for God planting phoney dinosaur bones to screw up scientists, I don't see it that way at all. Quite the opposite. God gave us science as a tool to better ourselves (or perhaps worsen ourselves...He gave us the free will to choose). Science allows humans to develop cures for diseases, to invent light bulbs, even, in the simplest sense, to "know" that if we place our hand in a burning fireplace, it will hurt. We need the predictability that science provides in order to progress as a race, and to learn newer and better ways to live our lives. And God wants us to progress.

Of course science wouldn't make any sense at all if it weren't entirely coherent. Without those "phoney dinosaur bones", science would be incoherent. Without a coherent set of scientific principles, science would be worthless, and we'd all be living in an incoherent, chaotic, nonsensical world; and what use would it be for us or for God to have us living in an incoherent, chaotic, nonsensical world with not a smidgen of science to rely upon?

But I have to say this is all theory on my part. It may surprise you, but I don't even believe in God "100%". I really don't know what the REAL truth of it all is. For all I know Stu and all the rest could be right, and I could be just a naive believer in some non-existant "Supreme Being". But that's my story for now and I'm sticking to it. :) Loomis 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, I put that header in because it seemed like a good middle spot for an edit point for our convenience because this is a very long topic. Once you pointed that out I can now see how it may have seemed strange when done that way. I added a couple more and simply called them 'edit point #'. It seems like a good idea to me.

StuRat, I'm sorry but I don't feel like responding to your questions. I think you're trolling me and It's disheartening to write something and have someone who is obviously intelligent not take the time to read and actually understand what you're getting at, but instead argue over misinterpretations of what you've written that they wouldn't have gotten had they spent an extra minute to think about what they've read. I actually feel more than a little bit disrespected. -LambaJan 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel disrespected, but you did start off by accusing me of blasphemy, and that's not a very respectful way to start a convo. The edit points are a good idea, although I think I'd try to list subtopics in the title. StuRat 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LambaJan, now that I know who and why the header was put there, I really don't mind at all the way it was, or if you wish, keep it the new way...it's up to you. I agree that it's a good idea, I was just really confused about it at first. Loomis 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Portrait rights

Under Dutch law, if a painter or photographer creates a portrait of someone he has the auteursrechten ("author rights") on that work, but the portraitee holds the portretrechten ("portrait rights"). In case of an non-commissioned work this gives the portraitee some protection against misuse of his face. In case of a commissioned work it gives the portraitee the unlimited right to multiply and distribute the portrait and takes away this right from the author.

Who would be the copyright holder in this case ("auteursrechten" is usually translated as copyright, but in this case it would be the portraitee who holds the rights to copy the work). Do similar rules apply in other countries (especially the U.S.)? If not, how would these rules interact if, for example, the author was American while the portraitee is Dutch? —Ruud 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The nationality of the sitter/author doesn't matter by itself; what matters is where the suit is prosecuted (Dutch law would apply in the Netherlands, U.S. law applies in the U.S.). There are probably more complicated ramifications for establishing standing in the U.S. (much less in Dutch law, which I know nothing about) but as a rule of thumb that's a good way to think about it, I think.

Anyway, in the U.S. you have personality rights, which allows you certain amounts of control of usage of your likeness. As the page explains, in the U.S. this can be very complicated (courts have interpretted using someone's portrait for artistic purposes as protected under the First Amendment). These are more like trademark rights than copyrights—the portraitee would not gain a copyright claim or the ability to distribute licenses, but they could prevent certain types of usages of the image, in the same way that a company can with its logo. --Fastfission 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessarily correct to say "what matters is where the suit is prosecuted (Dutch law would apply in the Netherlands, U.S. law applies in the U.S.)". See choice of law. Also see Choice of Law in International Copyright or search Google. --Mathew5000 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue Paper/Envelopes For Airmail

At Woolworths, you can buy writing paper and matching envelopes in white or blue. Is it supposed to be traditional that air mail is sent written on blue paper with blue envelopes, or did I just make that up? If it is meant to be that way, why? If not, then why do blue paper/envelopes exist? --130.161.182.77 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue envelopes are not mentioned in airmail etiquette. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A more common type of airmail envelope is pictured here, although I don't believe that its use is mandatory. Of course, the specific requirements for sending airmail depend upon where you are located. And I would imagine that blue paper and envelopes exist because they look nice. --LarryMac 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Air mail envelopes are traditionally thinner and therefore lighter than "secruity envelopes" and other domestic envelopes. This is a matter of economics. They sometimes have bar codes and other postal indicators running along the side. This is merely to aid the postal services. As for the tint of the paper, that is sometimes to help a postal worker instantly recognize those missives that need to go by air from those that will go by surface. This all dates to when air mail was a rare thing, when airplanes were an exotic situation. These days, a lot of domestic mail will go by air, even in the EU nations, so it's a bit archaic to have special air mail paper, but I, personally, rather like the romance of the thing. Geogre 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So did I ... before email came to use. Nice souvenir. --DLL 18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a side question here, forgive me for the tangent: I hate to ask where people are from, because it's a purely private matter, so feel free to say so. I'm just curious as to what country you're in where Woolworth's still does business. This isn't a simple matter of trivia for me, I actually have a "real-life" reason for asking. In North America they were bought over by a certain "Venator Corp.", which later changed its name to "Foot Locker Corp.", as the "Foot Locker" chain of stores was and still is the corporation's central and most succesful chain. I understand that Woolworth's (aka 'Woolies'...it seems the Aussies have to diminutize everything!) is actually a rather successful chain in Australia, but that chain is actually owned by a completely different corporation, who just happened to seize upon the fact that the "Woolworth's" trade-mark was unused in Australia and therefore "up-for-grabs" (clever little Aussie devils!). I also understand that Foot Locker Corp. still has stores in parts of Europe, namely the UK and Germany (that I know of). On the other hand, I was under the impression that they no longer do business in Canada or the US. I would be extremely grateful if you would simply tell me whether or not the "Woolworth's" outlet you apparently bought these envelopes in is in North America or not. No need to tell me what country if you bought them outside North America (yet I'd still be curious if it's no matter to you). Thanks! Loomis 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Woolworth's is still a relatively popular store for cheap stationery, sweets (candy) etc.. —Daniel (‽) 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To partially answer Loomis' question, the reply above is from a user in the UK. Since the original question came from an anon's IP address, I tried looking up the IP, and was told it's in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Of course that only means that there is a server located there, the user could be anywhere. --LarryMac 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm a user from the UK, but I'm actually using a terminal in a University in the Netherlands. I still don't understand though, why we have blue paper and envelopes and white paper and envelopes. I don't think blue looks especially nice, why would they not have other colors and shades? --130.161.135.32 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Woolies" is the largest retail chain in Australia and New Zealand. In Victoria it goes by the name "Safeway", but it's the same company. JackofOz 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Larry! Your help is much appreciated. Loomis 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Woolworths is still a significant retailer in the UK & operate under their own name, though there are some foot lockers in the UK I don't believe they're run by the Woolworths Group. AllanHainey 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Allan and Jack. I think though that I may phrased my question a bit sloppily, leading Allan to read that I was wondering about whether there exist Foot Locker stores in Europe. Rather, I'm really mostly interested in "Woolworth's" outlets, and whether or not anybody's aware of any that still exist in North America.

As a tangent to a tangent, (sorry for really veering off course here but I'm very curious!) I've often heard members say that they can locate an anonymous contributor (or at least his/her IP provider) by that numerical ID that's seems to be given in lieu of a username when no username is provided. Can anyone do that or does it require rather sophisticated computer skills and/or software/hardware? (I know this question is much better suited for the IT section of the RefDesk, but since it was brought up here, I thought it might be ok to ask). Thanks anyway guys. Loomis 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope the original questioner will forgive me for "hijacking" his/her original question, which was on an entirely different topic (airmail stationery). I don't want to be rude, so out of consideration for the original questioner, I'll repeat the original question, which should have priority over any of my tangential queries: Loomis 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At Woolworths, you can buy writing paper and matching envelopes in white or blue. Is it supposed to be traditional that air mail is sent written on blue paper with blue envelopes, or did I just make that up? If it is meant to be that way, why? If not, then why do blue paper/envelopes exist?

Was it an aerogram? I remember aerograms as being pretty much exclusively blue (eg [4]) in Australia growing up, and now associate blue envelopes with airmail as a matter of course. Natgoo 09:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

On the tangent to a tangent (is this an angle?) you can trace an anonymous users IP address using the third box on the left hand side on this site. Or just search google for IP tracker or similar as there are pleanty of programmes which do this. Bear in mind it locates the physical location of the server the user is using & not necessarily the actual computer being used. AllanHainey 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Allan, very interesting site! Just as a tiny follow-up (if you'll forgive me for my endless questions!) I'm from Montreal, Canada, and apparently, as my IP address shows, so is my IP. Of course I'm on dial-up so having an IP far away would involve unnecessary long distance charges, I would imagine. Would it not be fair to say that in 99% of cases (i.e. unless a person is deliberately trying to hide their location), the IP location would naturally be in close vicinity to the user? Or is it just as common for a person from, say, the UK, or even California, to have an IP in a place like Cambridge, Massachussets? Loomis 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Messianic prophecies of Jesus

I don't want to post this at Peer review since it's not a high-caliber issue, and it won't be a Featured Article, so I'll ask for your thoughts here.

It turns out that there are 3 articles on the same subject. They all explain certain passages in the Old Testament that have been interpreted by some Christians to predict the coming of Jesus. The three articles are Messianic prophecies of Jesus, List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, and Messianic prophecies (Christian view).

At this point, I don't want to ask if this is a valid topic for an article--I think it is, but that's another show. Nor do I want to ask if commentary is appropriate or if these are POV. That can all be dealt with later.

Here's what I do want to ask, however: As in Messianic prophecies of Jesus, several passages are explained as to how they are interpreted as messianic prophecies. Each passage recieves its own section, and the layout is very intuitive. However, this list has the potential to become very, very long (maybe over 200 sections), so I cannot see this continuing on in this fashion. Also, I can't see having a separate article for each passage, because naming it something like Psalm 35:2-5 would be strange, and to only comment on the christian interpretation would be POV. So, how should I proceed? Perhaps subpages? Messianic prophecies of Jesus/Isaiah 53? (slightly unorthodox) Or just a really, really long list? (way over 30kb) Maybe Messianic prophecies of Jesus/Part1? (difficult to find the desired passages)

I really appreciate anyone putting thought into this. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be done in tabular form, with the prophecy on one side and a brief explanation of its fulfilment on the right hand side. The table could be divided into sections; one for the Torah, one for the Psalms, one for Is.-Ezek., etc. BenC7 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case :

• Create a short list of propheties, without details. Do not insert new ones, please.
• Explain,in every Bible article, e.g. Isaiah, Psalms, where there are messianic or fulfilled (?) propheties ; create some articulets (stubs) if needed. Try to explain also why some books are void of propheties or hints ...
• Create the appropriate links (and see to delete the three articles).

There should be a counterpart, which is : list of miracles and related facts applying not only to Jeez (but also to Osiris, Krishna, you and me.) --DLL 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

cartoon about raccoons stealing a garbage truck

I'm searching for a cartoon that I watched as a kid about raccoons stealing garbage to feed their families. They would steal a garbage truck at night and return it in the morning. Anyone know what this was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamfiltre (talk • contribs)

---

I believe your referring to a cartoon called The Raccoons here is the link with more information although the site is undergoing maintenace try viewing the cached page through google. Hiope this helps http://www.80scartoons.net/toons/raccoons.html

---

Did you even follow the link to this page before posting a response? The link is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamfiltre (talk • contribs)

Did you even read the response? They said the site was under maintenance and to read the Google cache of the page. --Canley 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case that's probably not the right cartoon. The raccoons on the The Raccoons did not eat garbage and there were no humans from whom to steal garbage trucks... Adam Bishop 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WWII era hair oil

My poor ol' dad remembers useing glyco hair products as a young sailor on his distroyer in the s.pacific. He is going to a reunion with his few remaineing shipmates soon and I thought it would be a good joke for everybody if he could find some to take with him. Does anybody kmow anything about this stuff? Thanks 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)(hobgoblin)

Perhaps Vaseline would be just as nasty of an alternative ? StuRat 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Brylcreem? Rmhermen 19:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Californian Poppy" (which may have used an extract from the California Poppy) was another one. The best of them all was macassar oil - our article says it was used primarily in Victorian and Edwardian times, but my granddad was certainly still using it in the late 1960s. That stuff smells so great, they really should bring it back. Plus it would provide employment opportunities for manufacturers of antimacassars. JackofOz 02:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That must have been a nice way to catch fire if something on the ship exploded during an attack.--Teutoberg 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So countries that need to import all their petrol should just do without? JackofOz 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but wearing something highly flammable on your head, when onboard a warship, in a current war zone, is pretty stupid. StuRat 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it's flammable at all, let alone highly so. If that were the case, surely this would have been a serious issue back when the stuff was widely used. JackofOz 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, all oils are flammable. And back when that was in use, safety standards were almost nonexistent, such as no seat belts in cars. StuRat 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen Bay Rum in chemists very recentlyhotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

What does six figures mean?

I'm a little confused someone said they were making more than six figures? Logically I would assume they meant they were making a million or more, but when I asked someone about it they said it meant that they surpassed the 100k mark... If this is the case is it better to say I make in the low six figure range or mid six figure range or even in the high six figure range?

Thank you,

It means $100,000 - $999,999, and the "more" part is not normally there. I suspect that it's used as a way to say it's not right around $100,000, but significantly higher. Of course, you could also say you have an income in the six figures range if it's over $1000.00, counting cents, LOL. StuRat 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since "making six figures" means somewhere in the range from 100000 to 999999 currency units, taken literally it should indeed mean a million or more. You have to guess: was the speaker lying, just sloppy, making way too much money, or from a country with a low-valued currency unit (like 1,000,000 Cuban Peso = 45,000.00 US Dollar). --Lambiam^Talk 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard the term used (in the US) to refer to someone making $100,000 or more. A million would be seven figures. Fan-1967 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Logically, more than six figures is seven figures (i.e. a million). On the other hand, I can see how some people could interpret "six figures" as meaning specifically around $100,000 as a kind of dialect alternative numbering system. I would certainly understand it in the first sense (i.e. seven figures), but a good websearch would probably establish whether this is an individual mistake or a general variation. And just for the record, I have several seven-figure banknotes at home, thanks to a visit to Turkey before the introduction of the Turkish new lira. Ca-ching! Ziggurat 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, a lot of BS goes on with regards to people's salaries. Generally speaking, I'd say that if you claim to make six figures, especially when not prompted by a question as to your salary, you're already pretty suspect of being a BS'er. In fact, the REAL high earners, from my experience, (those earning in the millions) are far more prone to keep quiet as to their income, as they don't have the insecurity required to brag. How do you expect such BS'ers to give you an even further accurate response such as "low" "medium" or "high" six figures? Loomis 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's probably sloppy language for "more than 100,000". --Dweller 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Suspect it comes from horse dealing when a "Three figure" horse,i.e. over a single hundred pounds was a very expensive animal(£25/75 being enough for a good road horse,or hack or moderate hunter) then inflation catches up and the price moves on up.

hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Corporate Titles

If a person is waiting to be named to a position within a company or body of government until the person currently holding that position has retired, what would the person taking over the office be called.

My example would be for instance, person taking a position now as CEO while the other CEO is still in office. The person coming into that office would sort of be a CEO in waiting or incumbent but I know that is not the correct term. Can anyone help me? Thanks so much if you can! --63.111.163.13 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Incumbent" is wrong: it refers to the person currently holding office. You can use "the CEO designate" ([5], [6], [7], [8]). --Lambiam^Talk 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam is right. CEO designate is probably the right word. I also know that from the time a US President is elected (in November) to the time s/he is sworn in (January 20th), s/he is known as the "President-Elect". But of course that would not apply to a CEO as a CEO is not "elected" per se. So CEO-designate would probably be the best term I can think of. Besides, in Parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected, but is rather "designated" as PM by the fact that s/he is the leader of the winning party, the term "Prime Minister-designate" is used for "PMs-in-waiting". Loomis 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're probably looking for pro temp or ad hoc, depending upon whether it is an acting position or an interim position. Geogre 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's "pro tem", not "pro temp", but neither that, nor "ad hoc" is appropriate to this question. StuRat 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Resistance/Terrorist" organizations that provide social services?

Following events in the Middle East, I'm wondering if Hezbollah is unique in its existence as both an entaity labelled as "terrorist" in some Western countries, but providing services to the local populace as an integral part of its purpose. It's kind of a hard question to phrase, as whether or not "terrorist" applies is up for debate (and I DON'T want to debate that here). I'd appreciate any pointers on other resistance movements that actually provide infrastructure support to a significant degree to the local population.

I'm not aware of any other resistance/terrorist organizations that are involved in social services at an infrastructure level, but my knowledge of global politics is pretty dismal. Are there any other contemporary groups/movements comparable to Hezbollah in the "armed resistance/social support under one roof" sense?--MattShepherd 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is a prime example. I think the Irish Republican Army might have done this, as well. Also, the Mafia and Colombian drug lords similarly provided social programs so they would have support in the population. (Of course, they also kill anyone who doesn't support them.) StuRat 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of groups which combine attritributes of terrorists/guerillas/insurgents and states, for example the Tamil Tigers, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Shining Path (in its heyday), the Somalian warlords. There's a continuum from terrorist cells to insurgent groups like the above, to breakaway de-facto statelets like Transnistria, Abkhazia, Somaliland, and finally to universally recognized states like Eritrea. Hezbollah lies somewhere in the middle of this continuum; it's far from unique. Gdr 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As self-proclaimed "resistance organizations", neo-Nazi groups across the world provide a vast array of social services for poor, needy Aryans. I suppose then, if we insist on separating Hezbollah's "social-support wing" from its "anti-semitic militant wing", then it would only be fair to separate these neo-Nazi groups' "social-support wings" from their "racist militant wings". Makes sense, no? Loomis 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No longer in existence, but resistance groups in WWII also helped Jews, shot down pilots and the like, anyone who was threatened by the Germans (with the possible exception of Gypsies and maybe even gays). Of course this touches on the question what is a terrorist, which you wanted to avoid, but can't. A 'terrorist' group usually has the purpose of achieving something for some group. So it makes sense for them to also support that group or its allies in other ways. To them they are not terrorists (but 'freedom fighters' or whatever). To the opponents they are terrorists. DirkvdM 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I go back to the def "terrorists try to maximize civilian casualties". If those groups blew up schoolbuses full of kids to try to get the Germans to do what they wanted, then yes, they were terrorists. If they stuck with military targets, then they were not. StuRat 06:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be a Dutch complication. By your definition there has only been one terrorist attack in the Netherlands since WWII (an IRA bombing of an English bar in Venlo, I believe). But the present right-wing government wants to convince us that terrorism is a real threat, so they broaden the definition, to even include simple murders, like the ones on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Then again, you forget to include something like 'not officially recognised forces'. By your definition most participating armies in WWII were terrorists (bombing of cities). As is the Israeli army right now. DirkvdM 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe most of the bombing of cities in WW2 by the Allies was to destroy defense industries and military facilities located in those cities. Unfortunately, the weapons of that era weren't very accurate, making carpet bombing necessary to have any chance of hitting the targets. While this resulted in many unintentional civilian casualties, this was not the goal. There were some exceptions, were civilians were intentionally targeted, such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, as this was an alternative to a war of attrition where far more civilians would have died in Japan, this can still be seen as an attempt to "minimize civilian casualties". I can see no way to describe the Hezbollah missiles launched at Israel as being "an attempt to minimize civilian casualties", unless they really think the Jews will just pack up and leave, abolishing the state of Israel, ending the war and returning all the land to Palestine. If they really expect this to happen (which seems to be the case, if you believe their statements) then they are seriously delusional. StuRat 01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again I try vainly. (Why do I do it? I really don't know.) Had the allied forces in WWII not "bombed cities" as you so simplistically put it, your dear Netherlands would never have been "liberated" from the Nazis. But then again, as you've also said, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". In that case, we should probably all have remained neutral when it came to the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. After all, who are we to judge? What I, with all my bias, may call a Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, can just as easily be interpreted as a Nazi "liberation" of the Aryan Dutch people from the clutches of the "evil" allied empire bent on the establishment of the ultimately "terrorist" Zionist state.

Perhaps we were all wrong to kick the Germans out of the Netherlands after all. A thousand apologies. I especially apologize for all the terrorism the allies inflicted upon the axis powers. Stu, you're American, shame on you! Shame on you for taking the lead role in terrorizing and ultimatley defeating those Nazi freedom fighters! You, as an American, are the worst to blame for playing the lead role in frustrating the attempts of all those German and Dutch National Socialists, especially with all those terrorist atrocities it involved! Shame on you! Shame on ALL the Allies!

Fortunately not all Dutchmen are as deplorably ungrateful as you. For them I accept their gratitude, especially since my grandfather was among the few, (since we don't have much of a population to begin with,) but the brave Canadians who were shipped off to Europe, and for whatever reason assigned the task of liberating the Netherlands. I accept their gratitude, the gratitude which they display every November 11, wearing poppies and waving Canadian flags. The Dutch are mostly a good people.

But now that I've made an argument, don't bother with a counter-argument. Just repeat the same old cowardly routine. Scurry off to wherever your lair is. But don't forget, whenever the opportunity arises, make sure to point out that Israel is a terrorist state! Don't forget to mention that we absolutely LOVE killing civilians! Loomis 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. StuRat 01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

StuRat tricked me into reading this (shame on you from me too :) ), but all I can say is sigh. Again you seem to have a point but don't bring it across in a manner I manage to follow or that seems to have anything to do with what I said. This, plus your derogatory style (no sense of humour) and use of caps lock and bold type (not here, though) made me decide not to read your rants any more. Unless they are short, which is rare (then again, who am I to say that). As for family experiences (which are no argument), my mother almost got killed by the US bombers that mistook Nijmegen for some German city. So now I find myself using nonsense argumentation. Another reason not to read your posts anymore. I'm having a hard enough time with StuRat. :) (Who is of course going to point out that me using nonsense argumentation is not so unusual for me, but then I hereby beat him to that - ha! ) DirkvdM 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure even nonsense arguments make sense if you smoke enough of the right stuff. :-) StuRat 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one's own nonsense. :) DirkvdM 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stu seems to have been able to follow what I said quite well, and the two of us generally find ourselves disagreeing at least as much as agreeing on many issues. I can't for the life of me understand what was so difficult about that post to follow. Your argument is basically that "terrorism" is too difficult a term to define, as it is a completely subjective term. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". My argument was that I disagree. Terrorism, though admittedly difficult to define, and admittedly not completely objective (there are some borderline cases where I myself have difficulty deciding) is, nonethless, an objective enough term that, to paraphrase Potter Stewart's famous line on the definition of obscenity: "I may not be able to define it perfectly, but I know it when I see it".

This time, I used the staple reductio logical technique to argue that the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" notion simply doesn't hold water, as if you follow it to its fullest extent, you couldn't logically conclude that there was anything objectively wrong with the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, and that there was nothing objectively right in their liberation by the Allies. A simple logical argument. I don't see what's so hard to follow about it.

However you're right in one sense. I do tend to overuse bold type and CAPS. I admit that it's a terrible habit and I am trying my best to avoid it. As for being humourless and derogatory, here's a great big smiley for you and you alone: :-)). Loomis 11:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, we don't communicate well. It's worse than between StuRat and me, but at least with StuRat it's all very much tongue in cheek. I suppose we'd better try to avoid each other. I've had enough endless pointless discussions to know when to stop. Which is why I said I wouldn't read your posts any more. Except for this time (and I will probably sin again in the future, but I'll try to constrain myself then). DirkvdM 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If what you're proposing is to simply and respectfully agree to disagree, and go our separate ways, I'm all for it. I agree that we seem to have a serious communication problem. I too am tired of the endless bickering over essentially nothing. Like you, I'll try my best to avoid responding to your posts. But just as you said, I'll probably find myself caving in to temptation on occasion and doing it again in the future, but like you, I'll try my best to restrain myself. Loomis 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually have one (hopefully) last thing to add. You're Dutch, and so naturally your home country is the Netherlands. I'm a Jew living in Canada, and though I'm proud to be Canadian, I really see myself more as an Israeli expatriate. Your home is the Netherlands and my home is Israel. You have every right to disagree with any particular Israeli government policy of the day, just as I have every right to disagree with any particular Dutch policy. Both countries are democracies, and that's how democracies work.

All that I ask is a very small favour. If you disagree with Israeli policy on whatever issue, such as for example the current conflict with the Hezbollah, I would have no issue at all if you would state it as such. Unfortunately your arguments seem entirely predetermined and therefore prejudiced. For example, Israel can decide on a certain policy sometime next week. Whereas I'll wait till next week to find out what that policy is, and only then decide whether or not I agree with it, your judgement would seem to be already made. Whatever the policy is, it's a guarantee that Dirk will be against it. You seem deny the legitimacy of absolutely anything and everything Israel does without exception. It's a fait accompli. Israel can do no right. If that's not prejudice, I don't know what is.

What I'm trying to say is that in doing so, you're being extremely hurtful to myself and my people. And it's not just about Israel. Even remarks such as: "the Jews and the Arabs are really just one ethnic group anyway" are extremely hurtful, as by speaking in this way, you're denying our very identity. Your message seems to be that we have no real identity as a people and that our home country has no right to exist. This hurts Dirk, it really hurts. All that I ask, therefore, is that before speaking your mind, (which you have every right to do,) please just take one small moment to think about whether your remark will be unnecessarily hurtful. And if you can foresee some unnecessary hurt being caused, please do the human thing and think twice before you make the remark. That's all that I ask. Loomis 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jews (the gene pool, not the religion) and Palestinians are definitely both ethnically Semites, there's no denying that. But why is your identity dependent on either a religion or an ethnic group ? Neither Canadians nor Americans have a unique ethnic group or religion, after all, and they have no difficulty finding an identity for themselves. StuRat 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You probably saw this one coming: I get the impression you are prejudiced. And you have a reason to be if you consider yourself to be Israeli. I'm not involved in the conflict and can therefore take a step back (actually, I don't even have to, for that same reason). And here lies an essential difference between us. You say you look at this and next week's situation. I look at the last decades and even centuries and try to form an opinion on the bigger picture, the movements of people as a whole, not the details. For a quick overview of my stance on the matter: First there were the Palestinians. Then came the Israelis/Jews/Zionists (or what should I call them?). Of course the Palestinians didn't like that, so a war ensued. Although the Jews had a good reason to want their own country (even though it couldn't possibly hold all of them), the Palestinians were completely in their right to defend their home turf. Now, however, most Israelis (I thought, although I heard differently recently) have been born in Israel, so they have the same right to defend their home turf. Impossible situation. In matters like these, the only authority I accept is the UN (the only representation of all people on Earth, thereby guaranteeing neutrality, or the closest we can get to it). StuRat can attest to this (we've had fierce discussions over this). Israel, however, doesn't recognise anything the UN say and even rejected a ICJ decision before it was even made, clearly showing their unwillingness to reach an agreement. There you have my main gripe with Israel.

About other people's feelings, I will speak the truth (or whatever I think is the truth), irrespective of whether people will be hurt by that. I am very much not 'politically correct'. For me the truth is holy, whatever it may be (assuming there is such a thing). But I couldn't foresee someone being hurt by me pointing out that Jews and Palestinians are both Semites. Just like the Dutch and the Germans belonging to the same ethnic group doesn't rob them of their national identity. Having said that, I despise stuff like national pride. It is one of the three main causes of war (nationalism, money and religion - although religion is usually more an excuse than a reason). I consider myself human, a world citizen. That I happen to be Dutch is pure coincidence. How can I be proud of something I haven't done?

So much for ignoring each other. :) DirkvdM 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect when saying the Palestinians were there first. Ancient Israel existed at roughly the same time as the Roman Empire, which was before Mohammed was born, and therefore before Islam existed. There were people there before the Jews, however, such as the Philistines (and Palestinians may be descendent from them). So, you can dismiss the Israeli claim because it's too old, but you can't argue that the Palestinians were there first, unless you consider the Philistines to be the same as Palestinians. StuRat 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What time frame are you talking about and what does Islam have to do with this? I meant that (the ancestors of) the people who are now called Palestinians lived there in the first half of this century, before the Zionists came. I think I covered everything this time. :) DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I told you the time frame, roughly the time of the Roman Empire. To be more specific, we could start with Abraham, at about 1800 BC, and end at 135 AD, when the last Jewish state was abolished by Rome. I am using Islam as a way of identifying Palestinians. While Palestinians certainly came from earlier pagans living in the area (possibly the Philistines), I don't consider those pagans to actually be Palestinians, any more than I consider the pagans from which the Jews arose to be Jews themselves. I also think you meant to say "the first half of the LAST century" (your terminology is 6 and a half years out of date). And while Palestinians did live there before 1950, so did many Jews. The Zionist Movement goes back much farther than that (1862 ?). And even before the Movement, many Jews had lived in the area since the time of ancient Israel. So, the idea you have that Jews have "no claim" to the region is just wrong. Now, whether their claim to the area is stronger than that of the Palestinians, that's an entirely different question. StuRat 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Stu. Loomis 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully admit that I may be biased, but bias and prejudice are two separate (though similar) notions. Anybody with a brain and a position on any issue is biased. I meant prejudice in the most literal sense, not necessarily the commonly accepted sense (which is quite different). By prejudiced, I literally meant that you seem to pre-judge.

In any case, a strange thing seems to be happening here. Ever since we agreed to ignore each other, we seem to have suddenly and inexplicably begun a very respectful and productive discussion. Rather ironic. If you want to continue with our agreement to ignore each other, that's your choice. However it would seem like an awful shame now that we seem to be making such progress. Just one question. I know you meant it as a joke, since you actually took the trouble of pointing it out, and so I feel no ill will towards you for making it. But even as a joke, I don't understand the "Fuck off" remark you made in that other article. Was that directed at me? If so I don't understand it. It would be great if you explained what you meant, but again, since it was a joke, I'm not offended, just curious. So it's up to you, we can continue having a respectful and productive dialogue as is what's seemed to have happened, or we can go with the first plan to ignore each other. Your choice. :) Loomis 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this relates to the earlier convo on how the Dutch are notoriously rude, from an American/Canadian point of view, constantly swearing at each other, but not meaning anything by it, similar to how Aussies seem to use "bastard" as a term of affection for their friends. StuRat 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As an until now disinterested (but not uninterested) observer of this evolving discussion, may I say it's good to see maturity prevail. Dirk, I'm curious about something. You regularly tell us that you're a Dutchman from the Netherlands, which doesn't seem to be pure coincidence, yet you now say you despise national pride. Why all the references to your home country if that latter statement is really true? I think Sir Walter Scott had a point in The Lay of the Last Minstrel:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart has ne'er within him burned,

As home his footsteps he has turned

From wandering on a foreign strand. JackofOz 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a language issue here. I assume Dirk is proud to be Dutch, but isn't an advocate of ultra-nationalism / blind patriotism, as in the expression "my country, right or wrong". If this is what he means, then I agree. However, I don't agree that the UN can ever be an effective "world government", because it's made of nations governed by evil people, and other nations unwilling to ever use force. This makes it about as effective as dealing with modern problems as the League of Nations was in preventing WW2. What is needed is the good nations which are willing to use force, when necessary, all in an alliance. I think NATO is good start, but should be expanded and redefine it's goals. It did a good job in the former Yugoslavia, and should be used for similar problems like the one in Lebanon (to destroy Hezbollah, not continue to allow the terrorist group to operate indefinitely, as the UN did). StuRat 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And who is to say who is in the right? Us? And who do we say is in the right? Us? Gee, what a coincidence. :)

There are plenty of issues where there really isn't any question as to what is right. "Gee, is murdering a million people in Rwanda a good thing ? Let's have a huge, useless, international body (the UN) study the question for years, by which time the question will be moot, as everyone will be dead. Sounds like a plan !" StuRat 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But look at how even we fight amongst ourselves. Bush declares war on anyone who doesn't wish to invade Iraq and France and Spain pick up the glove. And Dutch parliament only wanted tosend troops to Afghanistan if that was specifically under a UN flag and not associated with the US forces there, and under the strict privision that no captives would be handed over to the US (for fear of torture). DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I didn't say I was ashamed of being Dutch. Where did I state my nationality when it wasn't relevant? DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(I assume that was for me. If not, ignore the following) Maybe I phrased my query poorly. I wasn't suggesting there was any particular agenda in your mentioning your Dutch nationality, just that you've never been backward in doing so. If anything, you seem very keen to mention it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You seem proud of being Dutch - and why shouldn't you be. I was simply contrasting that with your avowed despising of national pride. JackofOz 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no! I am not proud of being Dutch. Why do people find this so hard to believe despite the fact that I keep on saying it? One can only be proud of things one has done and being Dutch is something that just happened to me. That said, I am glad to be Dutch, but that is of course because I am Dutch. I have grown accustomed to Dutch customs, so I feel most at home in the Netherlands, in which case it helps to be Dutch. Had I been an Aussie then I would have been happy with that for the same reasons. And had I been an Israeli ... not sure because that is basically a continuous war zone, but then people have a strong ability to adapt. DirkvdM 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Well, all I can say is that I'm proud to be an Aussie, for all our weird ways. Most people are proud of their country. But they don't have to be if they don't want to. Live and let live, I say. Thanks. JackofOz 12:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, about me pre-judging. My prejudice is for the UN. If Israel follows the suggestions of the UN and the rulings of the ICJ and still gets attacked, then you'll suddenly see me change sides.

About me saying "fuck off". You asked what 'take distance' means. It was a means of testing if you'd get my humour. Apparently you don't. StuRat does, which is why we get along despite our conflicting political views. DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't get what "take distance" meant, either. I just assumed that it's a Dutch phrase which doesn't translate into English well. StuRat 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I still don't get your humour, just as you don't seem to understand my particular method of presenting an argument. I just hope we won't treat these relatively irrelevant obstacles as a reason for not trying to continue communicating. Loomis 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the UN, I think I'm pretty much in agreement with Stu. I'd add that it has an incredibly dismal record when it comes to reacting to violent disputes. Take for example the way it dealt with the entirely preventable Rwandan Genocide. It was pathetic. With that in mind, who can blame Israel for not following the suggestions of the UN? "If Israel follows the suggestions of the UN and the rulings of the ICJ and still gets attacked"...well, I'm not even sure there'd be an Israel left for you to side with. Loomis 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Were things so much better before there was a UN? Is it a coincidence that has been less war since the founding of the UN? Impossible to tell (too many variables). But give the UN a break - it's a huge experiment in international politics that has existed for only half a century. Countries by themselves have had centuries of experience and the end result was two incredibly devastating wars. It is an experiment in democracy on a different scale. And democracy may be slow, but it's better than the alternatives. The UN don't perform perfectly, but what alternative is there? The mess we had before? DirkvdM 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for less war are: nuclear weapons (making all-out war between nuclear powers unthinkable) and pacts, like NATO (preventing wars within and between Western Europe and with the US) and the Warsaw Pact (preventing wars within and between Eastern Europe and Russia). Wars outside of Europe involving at least one non-nuclear power continued as always. So, yes, the UN is just a coincidence. Try naming some wars they prevented. StuRat 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I'm saying that the UN is all bad, in fact its goals are laudable. One of positive aspects of the UN is that it provides a forum for all the countries to at least get a chance to speak to each other and state their grievances before rushing to war. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Look at the UN's immediate predecessor, the League of Nations. This rather similar international body was formed with the same goal of preventing war. Yet many argue that it actually hurt more than helped in preventing WWII.

As for it being an experiment in democracy, I just can't seem to see it that way. I'm not entirely sure of the numbers, but at least a good chunk, if not a majority of its members are undemocratic. Is this really an experiment in democracy? Is the gathering together of the representatives of some democracies and many dictatorships to vote on this resolution or that really any sort of exercise in democracy in any sense of the word? I just can't see it.

Though I don't know the exact percentage of members that are democracies vs. dictatorships, I can say one thing for sure, just look at China and the fact that its people have no say in what their government does and right there you've already disenfranchised an entire fifth of the world's population at the UN. In fact, given the fact that democracies tend to be far less populous than dictatorships, its clear that the vast majority of the world's population is completely unrepresented at the UN. This, to me, makes the UN no more than a democracy of dictatorships. There's no real democracy going on here. It's a farce.

What I was specifically refering to though was its peace-keeping role, which as I said, is pathetic. If anything it gives the world a false sense of security, thereby increasing the potential for war, just as the League of Nations seems to have done. Take, for example the current Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanon tragedy. Apparently the UN had passed a resolution demanding that Lebanon remove the Hezbollah from its country, (and it would go without saying, at least prevent them from amassing thousands of rockets). Whether the Lebanese were unwilling, or whether they were unable to do it is really irrelevant to this discussion. What's relevant is that the UN apparently sent "observers" to Lebanon to see what's going on. What were these observers observing if not the vast rearmament of the Hezbollah? Again, a farce.

Just one thing for Stu: "Try naming some wars they prevented". Uhhh...don't you think it might be a bit difficult to name events that never occured? Then again, perhaps it's me who's not smoking the right stuff. :-) Loomis 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is rather like the attacks that are said to have been prevented with the 'war on terrorism'.

Well, the terrorist attacks planned soon in the form of liquid explosives used to bomb airplanes flying from the UK to US appear to have been prevented by the "war on terrorism", unless you think that was all made up. I believe a second wave of bus and train bombings planned for London was also prevented. And some wars have been prevented, like the US-Soviet War (see Cuban Missile Crisis), but not by any action from the UN. Perhaps I should have said "name wars the UN has stopped", so as to include those prevented and those halted later. At best, the UN comes in after a war has stopped, as opposed to being the ones who actually stop it. StuRat 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

About the UN being democratic, I meant as a world democracy. The system is a bit like district systems nationally. People vote in their region and the national government is then formed out of the leaders of those regions. Which is not a proper democracy, if you ask me. But an added issue here is that the upper level cannot influence the way the leaders of the lower level are chosen. One has to work with what one has. The alternative would be to give up on the whole idea. But there is some logic behind it. A democracy is a way of letting people live together. The UN is about letting countries live together. What happens below that level is basically irrelevant.

Also, I can not know enough about everything (or even anything) to make a good judgement. So I go with the opinion of the UN. If they agree on something, then there must be a good basis for it (representing all cultures and therefore humanity as a whole) and I will accept that rather than anyone else's opinion. Of course, there's that if ... DirkvdM 10:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they never do agree on much of anything, except the blatantly obvious. And I don't accept a bunch of dictators as representing their countries, either. On the contrary, many, like Robert Mugabe, seem to be hell-bent on the destruction of their country. StuRat 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, your facts seem pretty accurate so I suppose it's just a matter of opinion at this point. On the one hand, it's true, the modern era of democracy, as it began in places like the US and the UK, began by restricting the vote to adult, white, male, property-holders. This was obviously but a small segment of the population. But it was a start, just as you say the UN is a start, even though only a small segment of the world population is actually represented. On the other hand, I just can't accept the legitimacy of the UN in the same way. As I said from the beginning, it all depends on what function of the UN we're talking about. As a forum for providing each country in the world with the opportunity to air their grievances and engage in dialogue before rushing to war, I think it's a great idea. As a legitimate representative institution of the human race, not so much, not much at all. As a "peace-keeping" organization, very, very poor. In fact so poor that I'd say it does more harm than good. Loomis 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of PIM in Navigation

When did the US Navy start navigating using PIM (Plan of intended movement or Path of intended movement)?

August 4

Linda Fisher

Linda Fisher—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.88.110 (talk • contribs)

False — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Well, only when rod and reel. Geogre 14:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This question needs more Seagulls

Perhaps Linda Fisher King? Geogre 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Usually on Tuesdays, and often seen with John Williams on the cello. ;) Viva La Vie Boheme

• I await a beautiful answer with baited breath-

o.O --Proficient 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

can canines be halal?

my question relates to the answer that i got in 7.5 i.e.[9] of hen being Halal in certain circumstances. doesnt it mean that in case dogs and other canines, if, are fed non meat products throughout their life (dont worry u'll find plenty of such veg. dogs in India), and are slained according to Dabiha in the name of Allah facing Qibla. do they qualify of being halal in that case.

i asked this in [10], but was suggested to post this as a separate question. nids 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no, Muslims are not allowed to eat dogs. StuRat 06:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Both our page on halal and a number of other sites say that anything carnivorous is haraam; one quote is "fanged beasts of prey". In that case, it doesn't matter what a dog eats during it's life; it's still fanged, and is still a carnivorous mammal, and therefore can't be halal. Similarly, you could kill a vegetarian human in the prescribed manner, but that wouldn't make eating their body halal. It'd still be cannibalism. Besides, I don't see a very big market for halal dog meat, since I assume most Muslims would find it repulsive. The fact that dog tastes sort of like pork doesn't really help matters. Maybe if it tasted like pumpkin pie... --ByeByeBaby 07:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think. --Proficient 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

in my view both hen and canines should be haraam irrespective of what they eat. since both are fanged beasts of prey and have talons. this question was put here because i got an answer for hen being halal in certain circumstances.[11] if i take that answer, in that case, canines should be halal too. so my point was that the hen and cock are haraam too irrespective of what they eat. please look at the answer for hen being halal here. [12] nids 10:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No guyz, u all are totally wrong, hen and cock are not haraam, they are 100% halal if slained according to Dabiha in the name of Allah. [muslim]

WHERE CAN I DOWNLOAD FROM

Hi, what sites can i download all the songs of DJ HIXXY from for free. please no filesharing sites, just download directly off a site. thanks. JOHN

Looks like you will have to buy it if you don't want to break any laws: Amazon

Hi, Try limewire or search it in google hope this helps.... --Sangeeth 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some websites you download directly from are filesharing. --Proficient 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Words in "The Stand"

What is the word count for The Stand, by Stephen King? A rough estimate would be fine. Battle Ape 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Amazon the original uncut edition has 1440 pages. If you have a similar book by the same author the number of words per page will be about the same. (One of the Amazon reviewers said they got to page 200 and were still waiting for something to happen.)--Shantavira 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a Stephen King reader, no doubt. It's the one book for non-King readers. I still found it poorly written, but, compared to his other books.... Geogre 14:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the average per page on a published book is around 400. It can vary from 250 for large print to 1000 for dense reference works, but 400 is probably a good working number. So 400 times 1440 equals 576,000 words +/- 100,000 will probably be right. Damn, now I know why that dumb TV adaptation was so long. BTW when publishers ask for hardback novels they usually ask for 25,000 to 150,000 words. Nowimnthing 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Even in fiction, wordcount per page count can vary tremendously; Patricia Wrede has pointed out that "My first novel was 65,000 words and 276 pages in published form; one of my friends published a 120,000-word novel with the same publisher a few years later, and it was 274 pages." [13] Publishers can work miracles with font, font size, margin width, etc.

Amazon's pages have a link to text stats for a lot of books. For ISBN 0385199570 they say there are 463,519 words for its 1200 pages. ISBN 1568495714 says 462,138 words; ISBN 0451169530 also says 462,138.

Re what publishers ask for -- this tends to vary, but 25,000 words is far too low especially these days: even young adult novels have traditionally been at least 50,000 words. First novels in the science-fiction/fantasy field currently tend to be around 90,000 to 120,000 words; longer is more common than shorter. But this does vary according to genre and fashion of the time, and if a book is really good (or an author is really famous) exceptions can be made: it's all about what the publishers think will sell. --Zeborah 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Aw, Geogre, The Stand is my favorite King work. I even own a copy of the miniseries. It's not the destination, it's the journey.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

chinese civilization.......NeEd HeLp:(PlEaSe)

How did the chinese civilization came about or begin?Where did it begin?Why did it began there?What are the factors that caused the people to settle down there?Where did they get their food supply from?Very important>;

I'd suggest you check out History of China for starters, then settle down with a good book on the subject. If it's important, you should probably spend the time to do the reading about what is a large and complicated subject. Ziggurat 11:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "there". It isn't like China is a tiny little place. Youth in Asia 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a chapter in Guns, Germs, and Steel about it... AnonMoos 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another word you need to define is 'civilisation'. What does that refer to? Agriculture? Cities? Knowledge? DirkvdM 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Oaks Plantation

To whom does Twelve Oaks belong to now? I understand that is has been in the same family for the last three or four generations. Where is it located? Do they give tours of the house or tour of the gardens? Thank you. M. Jennings--M. Jennings 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Wilkes' plantation in Gone With the Wind? Adam Bishop 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stately Oaks, a replica of Tara in Gone with the Wind, is located in Jonesboro, Georgia, and run by "The First Families of Clayton County," which seems to be just a group of people who can tie their ancestries back to the same place, not unlike the Daughters of the Confederacy. Find out more here. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Richest City

Which city in the world has the largest number of millionaires in the world? Largest concentation? --Sashafklein 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the top three cities follow in this order: New York City, Moscow, London. You should check the Forbes archives. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moscow has the largest number of billionaires, too. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I read recently in ChinaTimes that a lot of Moscow's rich are moving to England. I don't know the number/percentage. But, it may put a small dent in the number of rich in Moscow. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I should think Tokyo, as a million Yen isn't very much, but it could even be somewhere in Turkey as a million Turkish Lira is still less. Notinasnaid 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kiplingers has a list but I think it is just U.S. New York has the most total, Los Alamos has the most per capita. Nowimnthing 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you'd have to use the same currency for everyone for the this exercise to make any sense. In any case, US$1mm is not considered an especially large amount of wealth anymore. Better to go with the US$ billionaires. Forbes magazine has a map of billionaires: http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/08/hometowns-networths-worlds-richest_06billionaires_map.html Bwithh 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're having trouble loading that 2006 Forbes map link, try this 2005 version: http://www.forbes.com/static_html/bill/2005/bill05distmap.shtml Bwithh 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Mexico City not up there at all? Sashafklein 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In Harare, everyone is a millionaire... Adam Bishop 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please may I have the E-mail of the person who wrote article

Professor Richard Millman (email removed - read the top of the page) Paris, France

Please may I have the E-mail of the person who wrote article ? I would like to know about the Resistance members who were appaled by the Nazi antisemitism and oppression of the church. Thank-you RM

Verdinaso From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Verdinaso (Verbond der Diets Nationaal-Solidaristen - Union of Dutch National Solidarists)

Some of Verdinaso's members however joined the resistance against Nazi German occupation, horrified by the active persecution of the Jews and the oppression of the Church by the German Nazi party.

Wikipedia articles are rarely written by a "person". They are a collaborative effort between many (MANY) people. You can go to the article and view the history to see which user made the edits you are interested in. However, that will only give you a user and not an email address. So, you'll have to put a message on the user's talk page instead of emailing him or her. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you do this on the user talk page, because that will result in them getting a 'you have new messages' warning nect time they log into Wikipedia, making sure they get themessage (literally). DirkvdM 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can also e-mail them from their user page if they have activated that feature. - Nunh-huh 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lizard Rant Flash Movie

Has anyone seen and know where to find a flash animation of a lizard ranting in the forest? He's says things like, "Not my chair, not my problem," and "Lighthouses forever," and something like "I love seahorses." Please help, my family depends upon it. Thanks.

Yes. Go to YouTube and search "drinking out of cups".

August 5

AUTHORITY OF US SECT.OF DEFENSE OVER SENIOR MILITARY

RE: AUTHORITY OF U.S.SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OVER SENIOR MILITARY COMMANDERS .CAN HE FIRE /REPLACE THEM HIMSELF OR IS THIS THE PEROGATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT ONLY??TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE SECRETARY WEIGH-IN ON PROMOTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF SENIOR MILITARY FLAG OFFICERS OF ALL THE SERVICES OR IS ALSO WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF SENIOR OFFICERS AND THE PRESIDENT ONLY...THANK YOU..GEORGE SMITH (e-mail address deleted)...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT, MR. SMITH. NeonMerlin 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

SOUNDS LIKE AN INTERESTING QUESTION, BUT I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR IT ALL, MAYBE YOU SHOULD REPEAT IT LOUDERLoomis 05:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The president makes such appointments, however the secretary would be in a possition to effectivly recomend people such appointments.

porn actors/actresses

I am just a wee bit confused so bear with me. Often in porn movies, the actresses will perform oral sex on the actors without condoms. Then, when there is penetration (vaginal or anal), the actor wears a condom (he performs oral sex on her, so she is "clean"). THEN, at the "climax" of the scene, the actor ejaculates onto the face or into the mouth of the actress. I don't understand the rationale of this. Any thoughts (other than the $$$ aspect of people paying bigger $$$ for the "climax")?

Some of the tortuously complex plots of pornography may be explained by Come shot. MeltBanana 02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess condoms are used during intercourse to prevent transmission of HIV, which is unlikely to be transmitted through oral sex. Other STDs, such as gonorrhea, might be so transmitted, but are curable, and likely accepted as an occupational hazard. --TheMadBaron 03:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They just need to make sure they haven't any open wounds in their mouths or on their faces. I wonder if if someone with an ulcer can get any infections (specifically HIV) if they 'swallow' (then again they rarely do in porn movies I believe). DirkvdM 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true. HIV can be transmitted through contact between infected semen and the eyes.--Anchoress 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

I seem to recall reading in an old version of the Tetragrammaton article that not only is the Tetragrammaton ineffable, but it is also protected when written, and thus four consecutive words starting or ending with Y,H,W,H could not be omitted, changed or have words inserted between them when the text was copied or edited. Is this true? If so, it must create a huge problem on Hebrew language wikis (where observant Jewish editors would not be able to revert edits that added tetragrammata). NeonMerlin 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your History Won't Halt. Not a word may be removed in a wiki making use of the history tag. The TTGM is just veiled. --DLL 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if you were correct, (which I don't believe that you are) and even if Wikipedia edits were true deletions (which they aren't) and even if text on a screen is regarded in halacha as "writing" for these purposes (which it probably isn't) there would be no such problem for non-Jews anyway, as destroying THE name is not one of the seven Noachide laws that Jews believe non Jews need to keep in order to end up on the right side of the pearly gates that Jews don't believe in anyway. --Dweller 10:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that according to Judaism, this rule is not one of the Noachide laws and so wouldn't be a problem for non-Jews. I agree. But Merlin's question seems to have been focussed on Jewish, Hebrew language Wikipedians. So the question, which is an interesting one, still seems unanswered. Loomis 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link to Noachide laws, just to refresh my memory, but wiki redirected it to the article on proselyte. That makes entirely no sense. In fact the entire "proselyte" article doesn't make sense. I'll try to look it over to maybe figure out what's going on, but at first glance, I have to say that my impression is that there's a serious misconception in that article. I'll be back later after looking it over. Loomis 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't clear. Even for Jews, edits are probably not "destruction" and writing on a screen probably isn't "writing". --Dweller 08:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the Noachide redirect, pinning it to the article at Noahide Laws. The redirect to proselyte is probably a fringe POV thing. My amend may be reverted by someone with an agenda to push. --Dweller 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller. Loomis 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did David Foster Wallace rip off Douglas Hofstadter?

I'm reading David Foster Wallace's Everything and More and enjoying it, but a lot of the ideas seem stolen from Douglas Hofstadter's books (mostly Gödel, Escher, Bach). Hofstadter does not appear in Wallace's bibliography. How has Wallace gotten away with this, if indeed he has? —Keenan Pepper 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that Wallace and Hofstadter are discussing the same aspects of mathematics, and that's why there is some overlap? The subtitle of Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity reminds me by the way of Paolo Zellini's A Brief History of Infinity, which deals with the exact same topics - from Zeno to Cantor and Gödel. It's just not a very original subject, I suppose. David Sneek 09:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, some things are way too similar to be independent. For example, the paradoxical statement "'Is, if it immediately follows its own quotation, false' is, if it immediately follows its own quotation, false." Hofstadter totally invented that; Wallace just changed the wording. —Keenan Pepper 09:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he took it from Wikipedia's article on indirect self-reference. --Lambiam^Talk 14:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They both got it from Willard Van Orman Quine; see Quine's Paradox. (Hofstadter does credit Quine, by the way.) Gdr 10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can seagulls be Halal?

Grain-fed black-headed gulls were at one time eaten quite regularly as i understand it. Would a grain-fed gull be Halal? --84.68.197.86 10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe carrion-eating birds are not considered Halal. If a bird it fed on grain, it does not change the fact it belongs to a carrion-eating species Lurker ^talk 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing pedantic, the correct word is gull. Ornithologists never use the word "seagull".--Shantavira 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn shame, Shantavira. Most people who use language are not ornithologists (worse luck). JackofOz 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the word 'seagull' also exists in Dutch ('zeemeeuw'). But I have never heard of 'landgulls'. So where does the term come from? DirkvdM 08:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I heard that yonks ago,gulls were land birds then moved out to sea and thus "seagulls"-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Cutural factors

what cultural and social-class factors might affect the decision o buy an AIBO or a WEE BOT?--203.101.162.136 11:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)LAILA

stfu

If you can afford one and you want one, you buy it. Youth in Asia 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Subpoena versus Civil Subpoena

In the State of Michigan, who is allowed to issue a criminal subpoena? Can a defense lawyer do it? I know a lawyer can issue a subpoena in a civil case in Michigan; but, can a defense lawyer in a criminal case in Michigan issue a subpoena without having the Judge sign it?

You are going to need a judge to issue a civil search warrent to go with that civil subpoena that lawyer issued. And my guess is you are going to have to pay a fee to a sherifs dept. to service that warrent. As for the proper question I dont know as I have practised enough law with out a license today, but good luck with that anyway. (hobgoblin)

Do you know where this particular mountain range is?

I've searched and searched, along with countless other people, and noone is yet to come across this area. I will give you the link, to where i have uploaded this image, if anyone can help me, i would greatly appreciate it!

link ==> http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=6c2e1dy5.jpg

1st. guess is hole in the wall, famed hideout of butch cassidy and the sundance kid, a closer look at the trees seems to indicate the veld of south africa. But the little house(?) does look to have a western A frame shape. Maybe Utah? It has a few box valleys that I seem to recall are famous in its history. I dunno. Keep looking and good luck. (Hobgoblin)

Answers on the Miscellaneous desk. Please avoid double posting. Thanks.--Shantavira 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazine

According to your website a Magazine is a periodical publication containing a variety of articles, generally financed by advertising and/or purchase by readers.I want to know the origin of this term("Magazine"), in what language an what is its meaning by its original language?

The word comes ultimately from Arabic makhazin, the plural of makhzan "storehouse". That also used to be one of the meanings of the word in English, especially for an ammo storehouse. The present use is metaphorical (a "storehouse" of information). --Lambiam^Talk 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is the relationship between "magazine"(publication) and "storehouse"?

Gyms, mirrors, body-image

Has anyone ever heard of a gym or health club running into trouble over the mirrors they have fitted? I ask because I'm convinced that the mirrors in the gym in which I work out make me look fatter than I am. I'm fat, but not that fat. I don't object to this really since paranoia is a big motivation for my fitness regime, and the fatty mirrors keep tend to make me grit my teeth and keep going. But it occurred to me that for some people somewhere this could have quite a damaging effect. So has anyone ever encountered this? Have any gyms ever been sued over this? Thanks --87.194.21.177 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a gym using "fat mirrors". Being surrounded by lean, muscular people who workout without breaking a sweat is probably enough to motivate their customers. Thuresson 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The mirrors would have to be curved in some way for them to make you look fatter or thinner, taller, or shorter. If they are flat, the conspiracy is false. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Even if it were true, I doubt a gym could be sued unless they made specific claims regarding for the accuracy of their mirrors. However, your suggestion is unlikely because while it's easy to make flat mirrors, it is notoriously difficult and expensive to make a curved mirror accurately, because of the problem of spherical aberration. In any case, you can test this quite easily. Stand further back from the mirror; if the mirror is not flat your image will become increasingly distorted.--Shantavira

I know exactly what you are talking about - I'm convinced that gyms have fat mirrors. I was an avid gym-goer for years and went to 4 different ones and they all had mirrors of the sort that I had never encountered anywhere else. Just letting you know you're not nuts! -Random Person

Why don't you just bring your own mirror to the gym and compare? -- noosphere 20:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonnets

To bonnet or not to bonnet

According to Bonnet (headgear), a bonnet is a sort of a headgear that is tied under the chin. Is what the lady to right is wearing a bonnet? Or something else? It doesn't seem to be tied under the chin. This and this looks similar. Thuresson 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in English mob-cap is probably the closest name see here. MeltBanana 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a "mobcap" was worn by servants. Any head gear with a brim that was made to sheild the sun for a LADY is considered a bonnet, whether or not it ties in front or back. Some didnt tie at all. Ladies hats were often tiny and served no purpose at all except to match their dress and show off the wearers wealth. Bonnets however were more for the sun coverage. Bubbles13hm 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sinai and Arabian Peninsula

What is the differnce between these two peninsula's?

See Sinai Peninsula and Arabian Peninsula. The difference is that one is in Egypt and is adjacent to the Sinai canal which links the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. The Arabian is the big one between The Gulf and the Red Sea. —[Mac Davis] (talk)

The Gulf of Aqaba. StuRat 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

August 6

Jewish Beliefs

Do the Jews believe in Hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.241.212 (talk • contribs)

I do believe that it is mentioned in the Old Testament, therefore, the Torah, so probably. But that is a just an idea I made up seconds ago. Might want to check elsewhere... Viva La Vie Boheme

If they didn't believe in hell, why would they practise Judaism?--Shantavira 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Old Testament is actually rather vague on the afterlife, but see Sheol... AnonMoos 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are frequently associated with retribution. Jehovah takes off his protection and the sinning Hebrew nation falls immediately to their enemies'hands. Personal afterlife retribution is less stressed on in the book. Now you may find reference to flames of hell in quite ancient Christian authors : maybe an old fashion coming back. --DLL 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't believe in hell, at least not how Christianity concieves it. It's more of a temporary place where our souls go to become educated about the Torah and God's way. There's no punishment involved and in a short time you end up in heaven. Pyro19 18:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the "Hell" that we seem to be discussing here is a rather Christian concept (with due regard to any other religions that may share, or even predate, this Christian concept). Asking whether Jews believe in "Hell" is almost like asking about which of the very many understandings of the Eucharist Judaism ascribes to. The question is irrelevant. The Eucharist doesn't apply to Judaism in any way. I wish I could come up with a better analogy as I'm not really satisfied with that one, but that's the best I can think of at the moment. All I can say is that the Jewish conception of the afterlife is incredibly difficult to describe, and radically different from the Christian.

So do the Jews believe in "Hell"? The short answer is no. The long answer would be far too difficult to answer in a few paragraphs, indeed even in an entire volume of books.

As for the follow-up question by Shantavira, specifically: "If they didn't believe in hell, why would they practise Judaism?" Maybe simply because we feel that Judaism gives us a guide as to how to live our lives in the most proper, ethical and moral way? Maybe because we believe that following these simple morals and rules leads to happiness and fulfillment in this life, nevermind the next? Maybe, because we feel quite simply that it's the right thing to do? Maybe simply because we love God unconditionally?

Do human beings really have to be "bribed" into leading moral lives? ("Be good and you'll go to heaven...be bad and you'll go to Hell") Is the carrot-and-stick, punishment-and-reward, damnation-or-salvation approach really necessary? Are humans ultimately that base and selfish that they'll live decent lives and treat each other with decency and respect only if there's some sort of big pay-off in the end?

I really have no idea what awaits me in the afterlife. And to be honest, for now, I really don't care. I just try to do what seems to me to be the right thing to do, the most decent thing to do. The rest I leave up to God. Loomis 00:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Judaism specifies that while there is some Divine reward and punishment in this world, the majority comes in the world to come. Judaism further believes that it's very easy for both Jew and non-Jew to reach heaven; it's more a question of how great your reward will be in the world to come. --Dweller 10:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Still though, Judaism seems to a lot more focussed on "this" world than most other religions. True, there is some discussion of the afterlife, but its main approach seems to be sort of "yes, the better person you are in this world, the better your fate will be in the world to come, but for now let's just try to focus on your behaviour in this world". Well, at least that's what I get out of it. Loomis 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article: Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come"). External link: [14]. --Mathew5000 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a lot of people wonder aloud what Jewish faith says about the afterlife (specifically heaven and hell as the Christian tradition holds) and I always thought that it would make sense that there was some idea there, as they simply believe the Messiah is yet to come, not non-existant. As another wrote, the Hebrew scriptures DO mention sheol. As for the person asking why they'd be Jeish if they didn't believe in hell, I think the idea is that you would have respect for God's wishes enough to follow them even if there WASN'T a punishment, and if there IS one, it's the same way a father would punish a child. But maybe that's just my take on things... Russia Moore 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Beaker culture

Is the Beaker culture just simply a movement of a way of building things/making things, or actually a people? Or is this simply not known yet? Rainsey 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP page says all : either some invading people or just a fashion for pottery design. And the answer could be found. We have to find graves linked with those beakers around Europe and tell if the remains, if useful, share enough genes to be considered as a unique people. What do you think ? --DLL 16:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure-- personally I would believe it be more feasible (sp?) that it was a cultural movement, or cultural "fads" if you will. There were no evidences of fighting found with these "Beaker culture" remains were there? --Rainsey 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"All Is Vanity"-- C. Allan Gilbert-- What does it mean??

"All is Vainty"

What does this image mean? Life is intertwined with death-- but what does this mean?

Can someone help me out here with a straight explanation... I don't understand what an "intertwinement between life and death" is... sorry if this sounds stupid..

gelo 03:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you do know that the phrase is from the Bible, specifically Ecclesiastes 1?

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3 What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

The theme is that nothing man does is permanent, all earthly beauty fades, all things pass, and nothing really changes.

The juxtaposition of a woman enhancing her beauty by applying make-up at her vanity (a dressing table) with the death's head formed by her mirror, the cloth on the vanity, and her head and its reflection is thus a reflection of the theme and a pun in its own right.

Such reminders of death (momenti mori) were a popular moralizing theme for Victorians.

Does this help? - Nunh-huh 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! It does! So, in effect, it's saying that all human activities are vain, and death will come to all, regardless, thus death is not the opposite of life, but a part of it?

gelo 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it<g>. Sort of the visual equivalent of an epitaph: "Stop ye travellers as you pass by, as you are now, so once was I. As I am now, soon you shall be - prepare yourself to follow me." - Nunh-huh 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

it's also making fun of the woman with the pun. To her, all is vanity (her table), to the spiritual who are familiar with the mirror, her vanity is vanity (meaningless).

Music videos

Hey guys. I’m working on my next short film which will have no dialogue.. Only the music and the visual elements—hand-in-hand—working to accentuate each other and tell a story without words. So it’s basically an experiment in storytelling without words. It will be five different musical pieces, interconnected, to tell a story. Each of the five musical pieces composition will reflect the themes, messages and ideas of the segment.

I was thinking it might be a good idea to check out some good music videos, as they seem the closest to the idea I have. Could anyone suggest any music videos I can check out? Preferably, I’d like to see videos that, like my idea, have the visuals and music truly working together to tell a story. And also, preferably, I’d like there to be none or little speaking/singing- I’m trying to stick with the idea of my project. Or maybe a music video that is just plain different and unique? Whatever- I’m here to do my research so just throw whatever you can think of at me!

THANKS!

gelo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One that comes to mind is Radiohead's video for Just, directed by Jamie Thraves. It's available on the Seven Television Commercials DVD or from various online sources. It is described on the Wikipedia article for the song here.

Watching silent movies might also be helpful. Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Der letzte Mann for example, a 90 minute film which uses only one intertitle. Many good fragments from silents can be found on YouTube: Greta Garbo in The Temptress, Renée Falconetti in La passion de Jeanne d'Arc, Lillian Gish in Romola, the Marseillaise scene from Napoléon by Abel Gance, or, if you're interested in the very early stuff, Un homme de têtes by Georges Méliès. David Sneek 07:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing sounds similar in some ways to the video-music work of DJ Spooky, specifically "Rebirth of a Nation", which remixes The Birth of a Nation to illbient music. I'm afraid that I don't know if it's available outside of live performances, but it was very cool to see. Ziggurat 22:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you can spend a bit of time ballet is telling a story with out speech.You could get some ideas how to portray various moods from that.hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Religious question, marriage between Roman Catholic and Lutheran

Hello, I am a Roman Catholic in good standing with my church. I have been dating my girlfriend for 7 years and we are getting married in a year. I have booked my church but I have yet to speak to my priest about it. My girlfriend is a Lutheran, some people have told me she does not have to convert to Roman catholicism but I am not sure. If we had a choice I would rather she not convert, it feels quite weird for us to make such a big deal over to religions that are in essence very similar. I know I could talk to my priest about it, but I kind of want to get a hint at what he is going to say before I talk to him... I asked her what sacrements she has had and she said she was baptized, but she also told me that Lutherans do not get confirmed or have communion... Can anyone verify this for me and or tell me the Roman Catholic churches position on marriage to Lutherans?

Thanks in advance!

Hanez

You won't have any problem marrying a Lutheran - unless she's divorced. She'll need proof of baptism, but a Lutheran baptism is just fine. Probably conversion will be suggested, but it won't be insisted on. And of course it will also be suggested that the children should be Catholic, and that it will be better for them if both parents are too. The level of pressure will depend on which priest you deal with. But you do need to talk with your priest soon because there are all kinds of things you two have to go through ("pre-Cana") and a year is not too soon to start. Don't leave it until it's too late. (Lutherans do not consider marriage a sacrament; Catholics do, which is why the Catholic Church requires that marriage of a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian be a Catholic ceremony, while recognizing the marriage of two non-Catholic Christians as valid. - Nunh-huh 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, this level of understanding of Roman Catholicism is well over my head, yet I do have some purely anecdotal evidence (i.e., I don't understand it at all, but I do know the facts to be true). I have a work colleague who is not Christian at all, in fact he's Jewish. He met a practicing Catholic girl and they were married with the complete approval of the church. From what he's told me, all the Catholic church insisted upon was that they be married in a Catholic ceremony, and that the children should be raised as Catholics. The fact that he wasn't Catholic (or even Christian for that matter) didn't seem to be any impediment at all, so long as those other two conditions were met. (Of course in my workmate's case, it was the groom who was the non-Catholic, whereas in your case it's the bride. I doubt that's a factor, but as I said, this level of understanding of Catholicism is well over my head, so all I could do is just convey all the facts, however irrelevant that that last one may be, and hope it's helpful). Loomis 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lutherans have communion. They don't have confirmation (pretty sure). Does it really matter? BenC7 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on that. Almost all denominations that practice infant baptism also practice confirmation. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Our ancestors looked like this?

On Australopithecus#Evolutionary_role it shows the species as having dark brown skin (like an African?), and it shows the female as having smallish, not very pendulous breasts. I wonder if details like that are from the artist's bias and need to comply to contemporary expectations or sensibilities, or if it's the most scientifically accurate pictuer of them based on the information we do scientifically know about the species? Where can I learn more about what my direct ancestors looked like, and how they lived day to day?--Sonjaaa 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The details of the reconstruction are basically plausible guesses. For example, given the range of occurrence, skin pigmentation as protection against the sun is very likely. We have very little direct knowledge of the everyday life of australopitheci, and little agreement among scientists. It is not necessarily true that they were direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. --Lambiam^Talk 07:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another picture... Neanderthals#Tools --Sonjaaa 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthals aren't our direct ancestors (don't know about yours, though :) ), although there is speculation that there may have been some mixing with humans. The relative breast size of human females is rather unique, I believe. The only other animal that I can think of is the cow, but they are specifically bred for that purpose. There is a theory that males started preferring big breast when people started having 'frontal sex' (what is that called?), as an alternative to the buttocks. So when our ancestors started having bigger breasts depends on their sexual habits, but I don't know how we could find out about that. But see 'prehistoric porn' below. DirkvdM 08:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the australo drawing suggests they were monogamous. Perhaps that is misleading or was accurate or?--Sonjaaa 13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody really knows. The illustration does not really suggest this, in my opinion; but in any case we know just about nothing about the culture(s) of people that far removed in time. No written records, no buildings, extremely few pictorial works of art, mainly bones and tools; not much to go on. --82.207.241.131 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We can make educated guess based on modern relaives of species. Chimpanzees live in small groups with a dominant male and female. The male may mate with most of the other females in the group while other males have less opportunity to do so accoring to their rank. In human societies we sometimes see this same framework. Monogamy may be an ideal in Western society, but it is rarely found in practice. I suppose the picture could be construed as monogamy, but you may notice that is not mentioned in the article at all. More likely they were somewhere in between what chimpanzees practice and what modern humans practice, though really there is little difference, esp. when you compare human sexuality with Bonobo sexuality.

As for the dark skin, hair and breasts, that is somewhat artistic license, but there is science behind it. Skin color is related to the amount of UV so it would be determined by where the species was living. People in central Africa tend to be dark so we figure our ancestors there would be too. Breasts are thought to have developed in response to walking upright. When a human female walks upright her sexual organs are effectively hidden and somewhat removed from the sexualized buttocks region (which is the only sexual region you would see if we were on all fours.) The breasts mimic the buttocks and create a sexual display. Nowimnthing 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What I love about the Australopithecus picture is that he's quite clearly not listening to a word she's saying. --Dweller 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• He-"Hey baby,wanna come and see my really cool cave paintings?"

She-Thinks*oh,that old one!* hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Also, the picture doesn't necessarily imply monogamy. Perhaps it was a one-night-stand? Or perhaps a summer fling? Loomis 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is directly related to racism. The thought that the further we evolve the more distinctly different we become from our ancestors leaves the Black man lagging behind. They have dark skin and a flat nose just like the picture. But that is not correct! Hitler and Stallin both thought that they were part of the more evolved human race. Natural selection(they planned on eliminating the inferior races.Jews and Blacks etc...) would further evolve the moddern world they hoped to create. Besides, most of these miissing links are helld together with 10% fact and 90% imagination. Learn it so you can pass but, do not become brainwashed!!! "All men are created equal" is not just a dream, it is a reality! In order to be equal we must be created that way.

You are talking about Eugenics not modern evolutionary theory. We know they had broad flat noses because of the width of the nasal cavity in the skulls. Modern evolutionary theory does not support Teleological views, Africa and ancient Africans are mothers to the human race. Nowimnthing 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, that isn't really the idea of different looks amongst races. Darker skin is suited well to hotter regions with lots of sunlight (you are less likely to damage your skin) and heights are also linked to lifestyle. It's not just about how different one looks from one's ancestors. Russia Moore 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question I've often wondered about. Yes, darker skin is suited well to hotter regions with lots of sunlight as you are less likely to damage your skin, but on the other hand, lighter colours reflect light while darker colours absorb it as heat. It would seem, therefore that the reverse should apply: Dark skinned people should fare far better in cold climates as their skin would absorb more heat from the sun than light skinned people, while dark skinned people would seem to be a lot more uncomfortable in the unbearable heat, as their dark skin would absorb that much more heat than their light skinned counterparts. Can anyone explain this? Loomis 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See Human skin color, specifically: "Dark skin protects against those skin cancers that are caused by mutations in skin cells induced by ultraviolet light. Light-skinned persons have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer under equal sun conditions." Ziggurat 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Explaining various political systems to a child.

Does anyone know where I could find clear, relatively simple descriptions of major political systems (socialism, capitalism, communism and fascism for example) suitable for explaining such concepts to 7-12 year olds?

Have you tried the Simple English Wikipedia? David Sneek 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that existed. It's perfect -- thanks!

Saturday Night Live Sketch

I would like to know the name of a particular SNL sketch. It was of a couple deciding on a baby name but kept picking each other's selections apart finding ways for kids to make fun of the names. They finally settled on (pronounced) azz-wee-pay, spelled ASSWIPE. Hehe funny skit. I'm pretty sure Kevin Nealon was in it but unsure what role he played as there was a man at the door at one point. I am also unsure of the season. --Unohav 1 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)uno

This sounds similar to a real name I encountered. This person was from Africa, but living in the US. Their name was pronounced ASH-O-LAY, but was, unfortunately, spelled Asshole. StuRat 05:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And whose fault was that? Undoubtedly a lackwit immigration official getting his rocks off with a juvenile 'phonetic' translation.--Anchoress 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'm just thinking that when they named him in Africa, they didn't bother to check if there were any bad meanings of the name in other languages. StuRat 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was Nicholas Cage.--Anchoress 08:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) BTW I googled '"saturday night live" "baby names" skit' and it was easy from there.--Anchoress 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Porn cave paintings

Inspired by my answer to the question three posts up, I wonder if there are any porn cave paintings. Porn#History doesn't go back further than some 10,000 years. But it is said that in the history of new media, one of the first uses has always been pornography. So by that reasoning there should be porn cave paintings. But I have never heard of any. And if there aren't any, does that say something about the way we view sex? Has something essential changed about that during the last 100,000 years or so? DirkvdM 08:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't the definition of pornography graphic images intended to inspire a sexual response? So if we don't know why the paintings were created or if any body fluids got generated over them we can't really know, can we?--Anchoress 08:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One theory about cave paintings is that they were made by Shamans and were religious in nature, so that might help to explain the absence of images of sexual activities. In modern societies there's not a lot of pornography in places of worship either. David Sneek 09:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some temples in India, I believe ... DirkvdM 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why have pornographic cave paintings when you have Venus figurines?-gadfium 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In a society in which there was virtually no privacy and probably very little inhibition or sexual guilt (cf. other primate societies), there would be no need for porn.--Shantavira 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Petrkovice statuette" is a carving of a normal-looking female human torso (not greatly obese or with exaggerated breasts) which is over 20,000 years old, but whether its original function was closely analogous to anything we would understand as "porn" would be pure speculation. You can see one photo at [15] (I have a scan of an even clearer photo, but it would not be free use for the purposes of Wikipedia, so I can't upload it). AnonMoos 12:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they find a stone age dildo some time ago? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4713323.stm --Sonjaaa 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The girl's gotta have it!--Anchoress 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's highly polished". I wonder if that was caused by extensive use, or do I have the causality the wrong way around now? DirkvdM 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shantavira may have a good point with the lack of privacy. It is very common for present day humans to at least cover their genitalia (although there are exceptions), which makes depictions of them likely. If that is done now (is it?) and it wasn't then (a dildo is more of a tool than a depiction), then maybe there would have been little inhibition. Funny how one can conclude things from not finding something. DirkvdM 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spy novels abbreviated titles

I have been given a quiz to try and identify spy novel titles from their abbreviations. I've looked at 15 or so novelists' bibliographies, googled etc and solved all the other titles except these two - C.T.Z and E.O.T.N I'm stuck now and would really like some help please! Thanks. --Halcyondaze 09:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Halcyondaze

CTZ = Code to Zero--Anchoress 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

EOTN = Eye of the Needle.--Anchoress 09:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Anchoress, you're my Wikipedia Google Queen!--Halcyondaze 11:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No probs!!!--Anchoress 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the Wikipedia Google Queen

Wikipedia Google Queen.--Anchoress 09:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And I am the Lizard Queen. Wanna dance? Natgoo 10:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no thanks. But thanks for the invite. Good luck with that. ;-)--Anchoress 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, if you set it up like this it might eventually work: Wikipedia Google Queen.

quote from nietzsche

"someday all of this will have as much meaning, no more and no less, as speculation as to the masculinity and femininity of the sun."

what is the correct version of this quote, and from which book or essay is it from?

thank you!

It's from book I of Morgenröthe: "Als der Mensch allen Dingen ein Geschlecht gab, meinte er nicht zu spielen, sondern eine tiefe Einsicht gewonnen zu haben:—den ungeheuren Umfang dieses Irrthums hat er sich sehr spät und jetzt vielleicht noch nicht ganz eingestanden.— Ebenso hat der Mensch Allem, was da ist, eine Beziehung zur Moral beigelegt und der Welt eine ethische Bedeutung über die Schulter gehängt. Das wird einmal ebenso viel und nicht mehr Werth haben, als es heute schon der Glaube an die Männlichkeit oder Weiblichkeit der Sonne hat."

Translation: "When man gave all things a sex he thought, not that he was playing, but that he had gained a profound insight:—it was only very late that he confessed to himself what an enormous error this was, and perhaps even now he has not confessed it completely.— In the same way man has ascribed to all that exists a connection with morality and laid an ethical significance on the world’s back. One day this will have as much value, and no more, as the belief in the masculinity or femininity of the sun has today."

David Sneek 12:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tittitainment

--217.184.221.141 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tittitainment: Where did that term originate? AFAIK some US Official once said during the seventies or eighties that there would not be work for everyone anymore, and that the people would instead have to be fed and kept amused with something or other and "Tittitainment".

I remember this, but I have no idea who or when it was. I have a faint Idea it was Zbginiew Brzezinksi befor he came into office, but I simply do not know and cannot find it. However, the term "Tittitainment" is used as if everybody knew from where it originated.

Any Help /Ideas?

Anyone sure of the quote and origin?

--217.184.221.141 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)JH

From this page:

[The authors of The Global Trap quoted] President Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as coining the phrase “tittytainment” (“tits” plus “entertainment”) to explain how the elite 20% are going to take care of the remaining 80%. Tittytainment does not refer to sex so much as to the milk from a mother’s breast, coupled with a lot of distraction. As the authors wrote: “Perhaps a mixture of deadening entertainment and adequate nourishment will keep the world’s frustrated population in relatively good spirits.” (In the Australian context, cable television, casinos and popular women’s magazines spring to mind.)

WP had an article but it looks as though it's been deleted. But wait! A handy google search may yield further information. Natgoo 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a neologism. The German Wikipedia still has an article. Maybe it shouldn't have been just deleted, but merged into The Global Trap. --Lambiam^Talk 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The deleted article can still be read at answers.com. Maybe it should have been kept; a neologism, yes, but coined by a very influential guy and lots of google hits. David Sneek 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, boys! great help. I guess I just didn't know how to spell 'titty' correctly :-)

Muhammad Ali

Where does the footage used in this Apple ad (>1 MB) originally come from? Ali is mumbling the following: "Back up sucker! Back up. Come get me sucker, I'm dancing, I'm dancing! Follow me! No, I'm not there, I'm here! Whup. Here! Here! You out, sucker!"

I'm quite sure it was shot in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1974, during Ali's preparations for his fight against George Foreman; the footage was used in the documentary When We Were Kings. David Sneek 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought so, but who shot it and why? Where was it first used, shown? Any clues?

In this interview, When We Were Kings director Leon Gast says he was in Zaire at the time at the invitation of Don King to make a documentary, mostly about the music festival that took place there too. When George Foreman cut his eyebrow the fight was postponed for six weeks, and during that period he shot a lot of material for the film. According to Roger Ebert's review from 1997, "the original footage has waited all these years to be assembled into a film because of legal and financial difficulties". David Sneek 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

16th century latin poet

Who wrote the poem that ends with "haec mea pathenop"?

Could it be that the last word is Parthenope, the name of one of the sirens of Greek mythology? Then it makes sense, meaning "She is my Parthenope." No clue, though, as to the poet. --Lambiam^Talk 18:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Humanity: Extinction of Indegenous Languages

Sometimes, I wonder why people are afraid of loosing their indegenous local languages. What do we really stand to gain by holding tide to a language that can be understood by only a few people? ---196.3.61.3 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Humanity looses much when one person dies. Much more with a language ? A language holds rich data about the life and ideas about the world and civilisation and ways of thinking of plenty of people. Even if those people were relatively few, there is a kind of original thinking that was alive in their tongue. The idea that it is a great loss is quite new : the same goes with extinct plant or animal species and we try not to reduce biodiversity. --DLL 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would be a great thing for humanity if we all spoke the same language. Many of the misunderstandings between cultures could be eliminated if we did. StuRat 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true sci-fi aficionado. People from Mars always speak "Martian", so why shouldn't people from Earth all speak ... why, English of course. :--) JackofOz 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or Esperanto. That would eliminate even more misunderstandings (and thus wars?). But the 'richness' of natural language, which I used to think was a load of bull for poets and the like, does have value, as illustrated by the different languages. The fact that a word for something (or expression or grammatical construct) exists in one language but not in others says something about the people who speak/spoke that language. A 'world language' would have the ability to express all those things, so it would have to be a very flexible language, and I don't know if something like that is possible in Esperanto. It certainly isn't in English, as several issues at the language ref desk show, such as a word for this decade (noughties?) or people in their twenties (twenagers?). There are better examples, but I can't think of any right now. DirkvdM 11:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "twentysomething" for a person in their twenties ? Two of the most obvious missing words in English are for "male cousin" and "female cousin", which each have their own word in most languages, even American Sign Language. StuRat 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory. People need no encouragement to neologise, as the burgeoning of tech-speak demonstrates. If separate words were really needed for these terms, how come nobody's come up with ideas yet? JackofOz 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Every word has a meaning, and no two words are ever quite the same - they have a subtly different shading to them, a different emotional weight. People with a wide vocabulary will choose the word they want to exactly reflect their meaning - sometimes they'll want to say they are thoughtful, other times pensive, other times contemplative. The same broad concept, but with different shades, each one describing a different thought, a different feeling. Because we 'think' in language, using the different facet of any given concept means you're talking about a different aspect, a different thought process. Now imagine that magnified over all the languages in the world. Whenever a language dies, a whole method of thought, a way of viewing the world is lost, and can never be regained. The ability to communicate is important, but the multiplicity of world views is far more so, and whenever we lose one of those thought processes, it is a tragedy that can never be undone. Mnemeson 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis: that language informs and determines knowledge of the world and behaviour within the world. Lose the language, and you lose that aspect of knowledge. You could think of it as the linguistic equivalent of encouraging biodiversity. It uses many of the same arguments. Ziggurat 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As an utter History geek (or "nerd," I'm told is the proper term), I think the loss of a language makes a lot of History basically disappear. If no one knows the language, all of the knowledge held in that language is lost forever. If you were to find your great-great-great grandmother's diary, would you want to read it? If your grandfather had a favorite fairytale as a child but forgot details of it, would you care to know what the tale was like? Everything could be translated to another language, but we'd still be missing something very special. Russia Moore 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Titanic

Having seen the 1997 movie several times, I've wondered: Why didn't many more people survive by jumping into the sea with floating objects? I would have used a wooden door, a desk, a chest of drawers, a table or a chair. How about a bathtub? Yes, the north Atlantic was cold, but these objects would have prevented immediate drowning. What am I missing here? Roy

You're underestimating hypothermia...

do a google search of "temperature of water titanic sank" and you'll see the water temp was ~32-34F, perhaps colder.

it's easy to survive for a long time in water without drowning. Just lie limp and float, sticking your head up when you need to breath. The water temp is what'll get ya, even in "warm" waters.

To illustrate the problem, I once had a head full of shampoo when the hot water stopped completely (broken pipe, it later turned out), so I attempted to rinse with cold water, around 40F. I nearly passed out immediately. Now imagine trying to survive for hours in even colder water. StuRat 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the sea your head would be above water, which would certainly help. The thing to do (but then most passengers on the Titanic wouldn't have known that) is to put on as much (layers of) clothing as you can. You might think that the clothes getting wet would make that pointless, but it isn't. In stead of air, water would be trapped between the clothes, reducing convection. And if the clothes are woolen, that would mean air trapped in the clothes as well and extra material-to-material boundaries (what is that called?), also reducing heat conduction. Still, it is best to keep as much of your body out of the water, so something to climb on would certainly help. A bath tub sounds good, but I don't see anyone undoing the plumbing and dragging it onto the deck. Deck chairs tied together or anything made of wood sounds better. I suppose most people would have been in such a panic (or, conversely, blindly trusting those in charge) that they wouldn't have thought straight. Even when you know what to do it can be difficult to remember it when you're in a panic, as I once noticed when our house was on fire. DirkvdM 11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the book accessible right now, but one of the classic mountaineering books has a listing of how long you can expect to survive unprotected in various cold conditions. For someone treading 32F water with their hair dry, the expected survival is 50 minutes. If you've got a life vest or other flotation device so you can curl up to minimize surface area, you gain another 15 minutes. Someone with a thick layer of body fat (50+ pounds overweight) gains another 20 minutes.

The other big hazard from cold exposure is improper first aid. The obvious treatement for extended immersion in cold water is to warm them up as fast as possible, but this just sends a flood of cold blood into the still-warm body core, likely leading to death. --Serie 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you ever remember what that mountaineering book was called, please let me know! It sounds fascinating. Ziggurat 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity also plays a role. Inuits can survive much longer in those conditions due to their short frames and the thicker layer of fat under their skin, and possibly some other, yet unknown, biological adaptations. StuRat 10:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• People did and survived if they could get to a lifeboat but the cold not drowning was the killer.hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

WAR AND HUMANITY

Its really funny but serious that world leaders willingly creat a conflict situation, refuse to resolve it, fight a war over it, then meet to resolve it after enough damage and monumental losses have been incurred, and finally vote in or donate enormous sums of money to repair the damage, thereby denying the needy by natural happenstance the resources/aids. Why do the security council of the United Nations met only after the damages have been done? Why do they not meet when prior notices/warning have been issued? Did they not know of the activities of the hezbullah or the warnings of the IDF? Or do we say the world is unipolar, headed by just one country? By passing resolutions condeming wars and other uninforceable resolutions, the UN security council should not think they are doing anyone a favour; it is only deminishing its relevance. We now know that Might is Right. Dont we think so?

Despite the fact that I likely agree with many of the political views of the above anonymous questioner, I can't help but ask him/her to rephrase the above paragraph in the form of a question, (apologies to Alex Trebek!) Despite its formally innapropriate and only partially intelligible form, there does indeed appear, in my opinion, to be quite a lot of truth hidden deep within it. It's understandable, though, if the above contributor is new to wikipedia, to be not entirely familiar with the format of the RefDesk. Loomis 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I take the question to be "Why can't the UN do more to prevent foreseeable conflicts, like the one caused by leaving Hezbollah armed and on the Israeli border ?". I would add other examples like the failure of the UN to act in Rwanda and Darfur. I give two reasons:

1) Many countries within the UN simply don't care how many innocent people die. China, for example, always votes for their own economic interests, no matter how many must die. They have a veto on the UN Security Council, so nothing can happen without their approval.

2) Many other countries within the UN care about how many innocent people die, but are not willing to use force to prevent it from happening. This includes most of the countries in Europe. In the real world, it is often necessary to use force to prevent genocide, terrorism, etc.

StuRat 05:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

UN partition plan

Israel

The UN made a decision a long time ago, with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, and many times after. But the competing parties took turn in not accepting them. At first the Palestinians didn't accept it because they, in stead of the newcomers, had to migrate. But then Israel started taking even more. Just compare the two maps to the left. On top of that, Israel has moved even further, taking the Golan heights from Syria. Then building a wall in Palestinian territory, destroying much of the infrastructure in that land. And now they are invading Lebanon. Will they retreat this time? As for why the UN don't act here, the major reason is that the US are using their veto power in the UN Security Council, as long as Israel has the advantage. At least, according to a US correspondent on Dutch tv. A core problem is indeed that the UN tries to rely as much as possible on consensus and a that is something that is hard to reach worldwide. If they didn't, they could find themselves at war with specific countries, and that would go against the UN goal of uniting the world in peace. DirkvdM 11:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DirkVDM, you took part in answering my questions here [16] It was discussed there that the UN in 1947 proposed democratic rule in both parts and forbade expulsion of Arab people from the Jewish part and vice versa. If you say different things here, why didn't you disagree there? Evilbu 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That I said something somewhere doesn't mean I follow the entire discussion. Anyway, it doesn't take official expulsion to get a people to move. Give them a hard enough time for long enough and they will leave of their own accord. Pretty much the reason Jews went to Israel, by the way. Except that, ironically, things only got worse there. DirkvdM 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews under Romans for dummies

Hello,

I have been going through Wikipedia but I can't seem to find an answer for these questions:

1. When did Roman occupation of Israel end (roughly)? Now I know this is probably gonna be a hard question with all those provinces like Samarie and Galilee. My teacher told me long ago : the Romans occupied it from 70 BC to 70 AC. Is that correct??

2. If you ask a random Zionist (thus I am asking for their perspective) when was the bulk of Jews expelled from the land they claim now as Israel. I mean that is basically the Zionist claim : Jews lived in the current nation of Israel and where expelled by the Romans? What date would you give? 70 AC? 110 AC?

Thanks,

Evilbu 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Roman occupation merged seamlessly into the Byzantine Empire. They lost the area to he Persians for a short while but regained it at Battle of Nineveh (627) but lost it promptly to the Arabs at the Battle of Yarmouk. As for the average Zionist, who knows, but it was never quite a complete process. MeltBanana 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The expulsion of the Jews from Israel actually happened in many stages spanning many centuries, and involving not just the Romans, but other conquering peoples as well. It's generally understood to have started as early as 586BC by the Babylonians, to about 136AD by the Romans. But even then, some Jews remained, so it's really hard to put a single date for this event that actually spanned many centuries. I don't think many Zionists would point the finger at the Romans alone.

You refer to this as the Zionist "claim". I'm not saying that Zionism isn't an extremely controversial subject, I just don't think that much, if any of the controversy involves a questioning of whether these events are true. They're pretty much regarded as undisputed fact by pretty much all historians. That's not where the controversy lies. Most of the controversy, from what I understand, lies in the fact that all these events happened so long ago, and in the meantime, other Arab peoples (basically what are referred to today as the Palestinians) settled in the land and called it home for centuries. It seems to me that the controversy is centred mainly on that fact, that is, do a people who were kicked out of their homeland so long ago have the right to come back after such a long absence, during which other another people settled there? The argument has its merit, which is why most Zionists are willing to accept the "two-State-solution" idea, recognizing that though the Jews may have been unjustly expelled, it can't be ignored that the Palestinians, having lived there so long, have something of a claim to the land as well. Loomis 10:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And Evilbu, I just have to say that I admire your self-deprecating attitude -- by indirectly refering to yourself as a "dummy" on several occasions. But just to be sure, I find your questions to be very intelligent and thought provoking. Most of all, I admire the fact that you have the self-esteem to be open and honest about subjects where you feel lacking in knowledge. You're no dummy, Evilbu, and I tip my hat to you. Loomis 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother UK question...

As an avid (rabid?) Big Brother fanboy, I've noticed in the past couple of weeks, as the series draws to a close that several of the housemates (inmates?) have been making comments about how they're dreading having to leave the security of the Big Brother house at the end of the series and how the outside world now seems big, scary and uncertain to them. When the thing started, most of the HMs were saying the exact opposite. Anyone know if there is a name for this particular psychological effect? I seem to remember reading something about a condition along those lines somewhere, sometime... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome? Skittle 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to the proper term for it, but what I'm pretty sure of is that the phenomenon you're speaking of played a very essential element in that excellent film The Shawshank Redemption. In the film, (based on a book by Stephen King,) the inmates in a maximum security prison have a discussion about that very phenomenon, where they call it "institutionalization". Unfortunately that term doesn't seem to really capture exactly what you're speaking of. The wiki article on it barely touches on that aspect since the term "institutionalization" has so many other, more commonly associated meanings.

In the film, one inmate named "Brooks", released after spending a lifetime in prison, simply couldn't psychologically handle his extremely unfamiliar and terrifying newfound freedom, and commits suicide as a result. In the book (but not in the film) this phenomenon was underscored in a scene where a bird, raised in the captivity of the prison, is later found dead after being released into the wild.

In fact as a child I had a parakeet. At first the young energetic bird couldn't stand to be in her cage and got all excited when we'd take her out. She'd fly all around the house flapping her wings in an apparently ecstatic display of her freedom. After a time though, we'd open the cage door, but the poor little thing would show little or no interest in leaving the familiarity of her cage.

In any case, I strongly recommend the film if you haven't seen it. At the very least, the wiki article on it does an excellent job at exploring these concepts. Just be forewarned that it contains a plot "spoiler" in case you haven't seen the film yet. Loomis 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome is where captives sypathise with their captors, as far as I can see it is not a result of the isolation. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that whatever it is called has the word "dependence" in the name. I tried searching for "institutional dependence" which brought up a hodge-podge of related pages, though none which clearly indicated that it was an established term. There is something called "Post Incarceration Syndrome" which one guy online seems to be promoting as the term for this (see [17]) but the guy's page makes him look like a crank (when you have to use selective quoting in order to establish that you are well-established, then it usually means you are not well-established). --Fastfission 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

in the case of Brooks in The Shawshank Redemption, it wasn't just that he was institutionalised - it was also that he'd been in prison for over 50 years or something like that and technology had progressed so much that the effect was even greater on him. he'd never seen a motor car and suddenly he was surrounded by them, so he didn't even know how to cross the road. of course there are still similarities but the BB housemates spend only 3 months in there, not 50+ years. --Alex.dsch 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lines from Literature

I've had a phrase stuck in my head for a while and I can't remember where I read it or if I am remembering it correctly; does anyone recognize the statement "We live in a old calamity of the sun"?

I found it; if anyone was curious I was thinking of the line "We live in an old choas of the sun" from Wallace Stevens' "Sunday Morning."

RECALL OF A MAYOR

--192.231.128.67 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)How do they recall a Mayor and how do they start and numbers needed to recall a people? Do they combine total votes for person? The Mayor that won only garnished 688 and the other person 630 only. At first election commission said the community must have 459 signatures for the petition to start the recall and to meet the numbers. Two day before the recall election, the election commission change the number to 907. After the recall election yes to recall garnished 583 and no garinish 307. But they declare the present Mayor the winner because they didn't meet the 907. Due to the changeed because they added both the present mayor and the other person total votes, but only one person is being recall. Also can you tell me the meaning of official office, can it mean the current mayor now or because both ran they total both votes for that office that the number when up and they said they just following the 9th circuit Supreme Court law. I thought that who ever comes out with the highest number is declared.

1) Nobody knows what specific case you're referring to, since you forgot to specify the city and state.

2) In the U.S. (as far aas I understand it), it's generally state law which governs. A state may or may not allow cities the power to specify their own recall election regulations, while the federal courts would usually only get involved if there are general voting-rights violations. AnonMoos 04:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rastafari and views on masturbation

Is masturbation forbidden by the Rastafari faith? --81.76.114.239 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

August 7

Cartoonists of Kerala

I would like to know about noted Indian Cartoonists

There are a few at Category:Indian cartoonists. --Canley 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Link provided above gives the name of only one Keralite cartoonist, O.V. Vijayan. The father of Indian Cartoons, Sankar, is the most prominent of all Keralite cartoonists. Yesudasan, B.M. Gafoor, Abu Abraham, Ravi Sankar (by the way, he is O.V. Vijayan's nephew) are some other names. Googling will give you more information.--Tachs 12:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

Are there any documents that record the life of Jesus outside of the Christian Bible?ĆÁĎ

You might want to look at Jesus and history. It's a good starting point for this and other related questions. --Allen 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... taking a closer look at Jesus and history... for now it's a convenient page with links to other articles, but it's something of a self-reference, and possibly a bit POV. --Allen 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot, both Christian historical documents not considered worthy of inclusion in the bible, and Jewish historical references. Sorry, I don't know where to point you.--Anchoress 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are very few contemporaneous sources, of any origin. --Dweller 10:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

For a pointer, consider that the Romans probably kept the most meticulous records of the time and they eventually converted to christianity. But that was much later, and Jesus was probably not considered important enough at the time. Also, the contemporary reports would probably have been rather anti-Jesus (they crucified him), which would have been the opposite of what they would have wanted later. So any records may have been destroyed. I wonder how they dealt with the fact that their (later) God was crucified by their ancestors. DirkvdM 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they were quite pleased! I wish I could say my great^10 grandfather played an integral part in forgiving humanity from sin.

You would think. But trust me, despite the fact that Christians view Jesus' crucifixion as playing an essential role in forgiving humanity from sin, being blamed for his death isn't quite the honour one might expect. Loomis 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I once saw a reconstruction of the physique of Jesus by the BBC- short, stocky, black curly hair (he was a Jew after all) - nothing like the way Jesus is usually portrayed. DirkvdM 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the accuracy of his works is controversial, you may want to take a look at the article on Josephus, and in particular Josephus on Jesus. Although Josephus was Jewish, it appears that he may have rejected his Judaism in favour of Roman citizenship. That part is a bit unclear, but the point is he wasn't at all a Christian, yet he wrote about Jesus, which seems to be what you're looking for. Loomis 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the refferences!

Have you read the novel M*A*S*H? In the novel (but not in the movie or TV series), Hawkeye and Trapper were selling autographed photographs of Jesus on the cross. That should be pretty solid proof.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How could he autograph the photos if his hands were nailed up?

It was an electronic signature. They set it up for him. He only needed to press 'enter'. DirkvdM 07:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to make such anachronistic technological leaps. Obviously, the photo was taken when He was up there, and he signed it later after He had resurrected Himself. Anyone can see that.  :--) JackofOz 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Was it a digicam or an old fashioned Polaroid? Because if it was a digital camera, I'm afraid the anachronistic leap would seem to be necessary. I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that digital cameras existed 2000 years ago. So I suppose it must have been a Polaroid. :-) Loomis 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

language

I've heard that there have been dicoveries that at one point in history there was one language. Is this true and what are the implcations?ĆÁĎ

I haven't seen any data on it, but I doubt it. Unless you are a Creationist, in which case it's as easy to believe as anything else I guess.--Anchoress 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're a creationist, you'd be looking for the language Adam and Eve spoke. Ziggurat 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See Proto-World language. It's pretty fringe, though. Ziggurat 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See current discussions on the language desk (where this question should have been asked). AnonMoos 04:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you mean human language. Once upon a time there were just a few thousand humans, probably due to some global disaster. If they all lived in one area on Earth, then it is quite possible they had at least a common language (a lingua franca), albeit with variations in different groups. DirkvdM 12:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

People can bring up Creationism, if they wish, but linguistics is based on the idea of diffusion of language and therefore some common point that is entirely lost to historical record. Most of those who constructed the early field were, in fact, looking for the Edenic language, and that was a project that involved an enormous number of intelligent people who did an enormous number of stupid things in the quest. Geogre 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

myths

i am a student from a small vilatge in haryana. And there are many person in my village and near by villages who know a bit of science using which they are making a fool of others. I want to stop them but i don't know much science or the tricks of science. As I can somehow have acess to internet I wanted to use it for the benefit of people. Hence if anybody could help me and my villegers by telling some common beliefs that can be stopped or some data that can prove to be mythbuster it will be great. My e-mail id is [email address removed] THANKYOU

Please give us some examples of myths you would like us to debunk and we will do our best. StuRat 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can just pick a myth at random: Many people in Africa believe that HIV/AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin. This is absolutely false. StuRat 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the Urban Legends Reference Pages at snopes.com. –Mysid^(t) 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's tricks it's not science. Indeed, give us some examples. DirkvdM 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic." . Although Haryana appears to be a fairly well-developed state, it is possible that in the smaller villages, there might be a lack of education. This would allow somebody with say, some knowledge of basic chemistry to amaze others with their knowledge of Invisible ink.

But overall, yes, we'd need specific examples in order to de-mystify. --LarryMac 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A myth is a myth is a myth. By design, it talks to your basic references and some part of you believes it each time it is told. Then the occidental conscious heavy brain says "haha, this is just a ..." ... A meme - good or bad idea invading people -, an archetypal story - the same in every country-, a very old misconception about how things were borne into existence.

To help building that heavy thing, education first! Take distances. Take distance with the power of speech, learn to write, which is powerful in another way. Take distance with people knowing numbers : don't stay numb (er...) when they calculate, learn to, and so on. Learn economics : what do learned people really wish to obtain by telling science things and making fools of others is money, power, look at the way they do it.

Take a better distance with any myth, first by recognising that it talks to you and that you like it. Then by building "what ifs ?" around it. E.g., what if Noah sinked and the raven metamorphosed into a nice guy and seduced Noah's wife ? What if Krishna could not learn to ride a bicycle ?

It is hard to achieve this : becoming learned, beating learned people, and still living in a true, magical thinking way. Just try. --DLL 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite lost. To begin with, can anybody explain to me what the expression "take distance" means? Loomis 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I am now sooooo tempted to say "Fuck off", but I won't. Of course I won't. :) (this was a well-meant joke ). DirkvdM 07:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It sort of depends on how far advanced your existing scientific knowledge is. For example, one of the basic tenets of biology is that life only comes from life - see abiogenesis - and that non-life (e.g., an old piece of cheese) does not spontaneously cause life (e.g., cheese mould). On another level, there are things like the Forer effect that dispel other kinds of myths... BenC7 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recognize this piece?

I came across a short Flash animation, [18], which played a hit song I haven't heard since the mid-90s. Does anybody recognize the piece and know who is the performer? I'd be grateful. Google comes up with no results. –Mysid^(t) 06:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

MUSIC LINK!!!!!!!!!

Hi, does anyone know where you can download the song "Shake It Off Remix" for free THANKS, Jo

By...? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Easy. Get a file-trader program. Install it on your computer. Ignore the fact that you just installed a lot of spyware and virus installers on your computer as well. Find the song in your file trader program. Download it. If it turns out you just downloaded more spyware, find it again and download it. In the end, you get the song for free and you are allowing all the starving hackers in the world to use your computer to send more spam, distribute more spyware, and hack more passwords. It is a win-win situation. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, depending on your country, you're breaking the law. –Mysid^(t) 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could download an open source one, guaranteed to be spyware/spam-free [19]. There's a bunch of them.... Doesn't really solve the moral issue, but who has morals these days, eh? Oskar 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Morals? Aren't those a type of edible mushroom? --Serie 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop stealing. Its wrong, if the artist worked hard enough to make music good enough for you to want it. The least you can do to repay him is pay for it. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's copyright infringement, not stealing. --mboverload@ 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what mboverload is trying to say is that copyright infringement is not actually a crime as theft is. Rather, it's an actionable tort, meaning that in theory, you can get sued for it, but you'll never be charged with a crime. Of course this in no way affects the moral issue. I should add that it's not universally accepted that this kind of activity is "immoral", as there exists a legitimate (albeit minority) legal school of thought which rejects the position that this type of activity is immoral. In any case, it's up to you. Loomis 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How is taking something that costs money, without paying for it, not stealing? Philc _T^E_C^I 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Stealing has the additional effect that the original owner no longer has use of the thing that was stolen. --Serie 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

China's debt relief policy

What is china's debt relief policy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.254 (talk • contribs) 13:51, August 7, 2006 (UTC).

Skyline

http://img469.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1wy5.jpg

May I ask if I am correct in assuming that this is the Manhattan Skyline or am I mistaken?

Yes, what you are watching is a view of downtown (south) Manhattan. The two rays of lights commemorate the lost WTC towers, this picture could have been taken on September 11th.

The river is the Hudson river, this picture was taken from New Jersey. Evilbu 15:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See also the last image in the article World Trade Center.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are also called the "Ghost Towers." I, like a lot of New Yorkers, thought it was the best of all tributes. It would have been fantastic to have kept them going, as it made a phantom limb for the city, but the light pollution was extraordinary. It was a magnificent memorial, but it was bad for the environment, so I think they have been displayed only on a few of the anniversaries. Geogre 13:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Love Resurrection

Being a bit a) thick and b) naive, I've just realised that this old(ish) Alison Moyet song is utterly filthy. Or am I reading stuff into an entirely innocent song, in a rather revealing reflection of the depravity of my brain? --Dweller 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it is what you're reading in the lyrics, but assuming that it is what I think it is, why to designate it as "filthy"? --Lambiam^Talk 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just by glancing over the lyrics in question [20], I don't see anything particularly suggestive. I'm not really sure... - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've long considered the lyrics to be about sex. But maybe that's just me. Or just us two, now. Notinasnaid 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Phrases like "a warm injection", "what seed must I sow", and "I want you to grow in my hand" seem to suggests something sexual going on. But what has sex got to do with "utterly filthy" or "depravity"? JackofOz 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Most songs are in these catagories

1. Love songs
2. My parents don't love me and my life is horrible but it's not because I make 100k a month
3. Songs that really don't meant anything because they rely on the music and not the lyrics
4. Death metal

--mboverload@ 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the vital self-pity genre:

1. Road odes: I'm on the road and lonely, but it's the onliest life I knowed.
2. Celebrations of crazy: They say I'm crazy, and I am, really, really, look!
3. Freak out fantasies: I went crazy three songs ago, and now I'm all alone in the world...crazy on the road.

Additionally, there are the party songs:

1. Gimme drugs, because "I Wanna Be Sedated"
2. I did drugs, and now it's "25 or 6 to 4"
3. I regret those drugs, because now I wish someone would "Put the Clock Back on the Wall."

And this leaves out the, "Hey, I just did drugs and had a spasm, so let's call it a dance and name a song after it" Locomotions and Twists and Blitzkrieg Bops and Ballroom Blitzes. Geogre 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

John steinbeck

How did John Steinbeck die?

Thank you.

Craig

Heart attack. [21] David Sneek 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabindranath Maharaj

I did a search for this author thru Wikipedia, and only found 3 item sources. What I am looking for is some brief biographical detail about him, or at least the titles of books he has had published before 2005. I know about his 2005 copyright book, "A Perfect Pledge." Thank you!

This link lists two prior novels: The Lagahoo’s Apprentice and Homer in Flight; and two collections of short stories: The Book of Ifs and Buts and The Interloper. We also learn that the author was born in Trinidad and now lives in Ajax, Ontario. And here you find a mug shot and more biographical detail. --Lambiam^Talk 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that is incredible!

Where does/did The Incredible Hulk get his stretchy purple trousers from? Is it ever explained? Does he ever not have any clothes just after transforming but acquires some? Wassername off of The Incredibles is the only explanation I can think of, although I can imagine some comic buffs wishing to shoot me for that. Vitriol 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They were almost certainly made by Edna Mode.--Shantavira 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Invisible Girl drops them off for him.--hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

I thought most superhero outfits in the Marvel Universe are made out of unstable molecules (though that page says it's mostly the Fantastic Four, so I dunno...) digfarenough (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

4 suites cards

how is it that each suite of cards in a deck represents a historical king? thanks00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)(hobgoblin)

Try King (playing card). Also, you can sign your postings using four ~s, but chances are you'll just see an IP number. Vitriol 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Our article refers to an interesting Snopes.com page that, as is usual almost everywhere, never tells why but only how. So your question, still unanswered, is very original and deserves something. Good luck! And then, if someone, circa 1377, decided to put kings in a deck, he had no other choice than historical (or mythical, but well-known) kings, because science fiction and fantasy were discovered very very later. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaza

I try to make it a rule to avoid at all costs posting questions regarding issues for which I have passionate views.

Yet here I make an exception, because the question seems so simple and the answer seems so inexplicably unnatainable.

About a year ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza. Of course, admittedly, Israel keeps an extremely close watch on the "Palestinian Entity of Gaza" (for lack of a better term), and even occasionally engages in military incursions in an effort to keep rockets from being launched into, and suicide bombers from entering Israel, from Gaza.

Yet, despite Israel's withdrawal, Gaza is still referred to as an "occupied territory" of Israel. How can a territory be "occupied" when it's no longer "occupied"? Loomis 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the situation, but it seems that the intro lead in the Gaza Strip article has a pretty good explanation for this. Ziggurat 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't seem to answer my question at all. It actually seems to repeat my question. Israel withdrew, but maintains control over Gaza's airspace. But then again, the US/UN maintained control over Iraq's airspace in the "no fly zones" for much of the '90s, yet it was never considered to be "occupying" those parts of Iraq at that time. The international community considers the area to be occupied, but ever since Israel withdrew, it disputes this, quite logically it would seem. Once again, the territory is not "occupied" by Israel in any physical sense whatsoever, yet the international community still considers it to still be "occupied". I'm still confused. But thanks anyway, Ziggurat. Loomis 11:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the "Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation" part specifically; I expect this has something to do with this, from the page on the disengagement: "Because the Palestinian Authority in Gaza does not believe it has sufficient control of the area at this time, foreign observers such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and various legal experts have argued that the disengagement will not end Israel's legal responsibility as an occupying power in Gaza." Ziggurat 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another way to view this is that Israel still controls access to and from Gaza. (Israel has blocked the opening of an airport or seaport in Gaza. Because it surrounds Gaza on all but one side, it controls those land borders. Gaza's only non-Israeli border, the Rafah crossing to Egypt, has been periodically closed by Israel and remains closed at this time. [22]) Thus Gaza is in some sense under Israeli control. Even if the territory is not physically occupied by Israel, its borders are. This was not the case in Iraq when it was subject to "no fly zones" enforced by the United States and United Kingdom. During that time, Iraq's land borders remained open, as did its seaports and air access to Baghdad, which was outside the "no fly zones." Marco polo 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is ã good and interesting question. I would think of this in this way : what country is Gaza part of now? I am no expert, but as far as I know, Israel does not recognize the "Palestinian territories" as a country. Evilbu 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the interesting points.

Evilbu makes an interesting point. Indeed, the Israeli government doesn't yet recognize Gaza as being (at least part of) a country yet. But on the other hand, the Palestinian government doesn't recognize Israel as being a country, and doesn't appear to have any intention to ever recognize Israel. The issue is occupation and withdrawal, so I can't see how Israeli "recognition" is relevant in this context.

The international community has called for Israel's withdrawal from the territories for decades now. Leaving aside the West Bank for the time being, and given the interesting points from all of you, what, in your opinions, must Israel do to finally be considered to have "withdrawn" from Gaza, understanding, at the same time, that the Palestinian government has openly declared war on Israel? What in your opinions would Israel be required to do to be "legally" recognized as having completely withdrawn from Gaza, while, at the same time, excercising its "legal" right to defend itself from an entity which has openly declared war on it? Loomis 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, your questions spotlight the difference between legality and justice, legal status and rights. You are right in implying that Israel's legal obligation to end the occupation conflicts with its right to defend itself under the present circumstances, although many observers believe that Israel's actions go beyond self-defense. I will depart from a statement of facts to state my opinion that the only way for Israel to fully withdraw from Gaza and fully end the occupation would be to open comprehensive peace talks with Hamas, whom a majority of Palestinians have chosen as their representative. A negotiated peace would entail sacrifices on both sides and would have to satisfy the desire of both sides for justice. There can be no real peace without justice. The peace would have to address the economic grievances of the Palestinians, such as land expropriation and water rights, as well as the status of Jerusalem. Marco polo 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another related question. I hope that despite my well known personal views, these questions are viewed as nothing other than honest and sincere, and not to push any POV. I'm sincerely incredibly curious about the position of non-Jewish, non-Zionists.

The current situation in Lebanon is obviously extremely controversial. I've heard enough of the "extremist" views on both sides. I'm really just curious about the views of moderates who don't have much of a bias either way, and who are unfortunately given very little press.

Clearly, (and both sides admit to this,) this whole thing began with a cross border raid by Hezbollah, from Lebanon into Israel, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing eight. Katyusha rockets then began to land in indiscrimate areas of northern Israel as they have been constantly been landing on a periodic basis for the last six years, during a period when Hezbollah was given the opportunity to arm itself. We all know what happened next: Israel acted, and to many this action has been criticized as "wrong", or "excessive" or "against international law", or even "a war crime".

I ask each of you: Go back a few weeks to before Israel first reacted. The Hezbollah has just killed eight and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Katyusha rockets are beginning to fall once again. What would you consider to be the "proper", "legal" thing for the Israeli government to do, given its responsibility to protect its citizens from harm? Loomis 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a question that asks for opinion more than facts. So here is my opinion. Israel's first step should have been to go to the UN and ask that its force along the border of South Lebanon do its duty and stop the attacks by Hamas. Israel should have made a similar demand of the Lebanese government. Also, in my opinion, Hezbollah's demand for a prisoner exchange and an evacuation of the Shebaa Farms area were not unreasonable. Israel could have negotiated these things through the Lebanese government in return for a Hezbollah withdrawal from South Lebanon and a plan for its disarming, with the threat of an Israeli military response as a negotiating chip. Only if these negotiations failed should Israel have taken military action. The action should have involved more troops on the ground rather than aerial bombardment that is more likely to cause civilian casualties. What has brought condemnation from many quarters has been the disproportion between civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure on both sides. This has brought charges that Israeli military action was "excessive." Charges of Israeli war crimes involve accusations that Israel has deliberately targeted civilians in an effort to depopulate South Lebanon. I do not know enough about the details of the Israeli military action (nor probably does anyone but the Israeli commanders) to know whether such accusations are true. Marco polo 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Symbology

I found an ethiopian symbol at this website http://www.hennapage.com/henna/what/lineart1/lineart14.html and I am curious about it's meaning. The symbol is the central one on the page featuring four eyes radiating diagonaly from a square located in the center of a larger diamond shape with fluer-de-lis type shapes extending from the border. I am an American artist who uses symbols as a sourse of insperation. Any information would be greatly appriciated as I have a difficult time finding anything about this particular symbol.

Thank you for your time and efforts Wiki Volunteer!

--68.50.185.41 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Michele

mother teresa

could anyone please help in finding out schooling of mother teresa? i need whole information about schools she went to...and some of her work experiences. i will be thankful

According to this site she attended went to a public school in Skopje (then part of the Ottoman Empire), and also classes at her parish. Her biography as a Nobel laureate mentiones "a few months' training in Dublin" where she was an 18-year old novitiate, but gives no hint as to the nature of the training. In these biographies you can also read that she taught geography at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta. And this biographical book chapter gives some more detail. --Lambiam^Talk 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

International Borders

Nations define their borders, correct? Where can I find those definitions? Is it contained in domestics laws or does the UN keep records of this stuff? I can't seem to find this information for any nation. Idealy, I'd like to see a database of all nations of the world and how they define their borders but I doubt such a thing exists. Pyro19 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In many cases the border between two nations will have been defined in a treaty, or parts of the border in separate treaties. For example, the border between Maine and New Brunswick is defined in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842. --Lambiam^Talk 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

please include my bipo in your data base. thank you. john dayal, india

Dr. John Dayal Member, National Integration Council, Government of India

Human Rights, Civil Society and Freedom of Faith Activist Editor, Author, Documentary Film Maker, India

Religious Memberships: National President: All India Catholic Union (Founded 1919) Secretary General: All India Christian Council (Founded 1999) President, United Christian Action {Founded 1992)

National Convenor: United Christian Forum for Human Rights (founded 1998) Member: Justice and Peace Commission, Catholic Bishops Conference of India Member: National Coordination Committee for Dalit Christians Member, Governing Body: Chetanalaya, Delhi Catholic Archdiocese, New Delhi

Professional Media): Former Editor in Chief & CEO, The Delhi Mid Day, New Delhi, India Former Editor in Chief: The Indian Currents (Former Editor or Senior National or Foreign Editor of Sunday Mail, Sunday Observer, Amrita Bazaar Patrika, Link, the Patriot etc since 1968)

Former Chairman, the Delhi Press Accreditation Committee Former Treasurer, Editors Guild of India Chairman, Critics Jury, International Children’s Film Festival, Hyderabad Member, Selection Committee, India International Film festival Director, United Vision Pvt Ltd (Documentary Films) Member, World Assoc of Christian Communicators, Geneve Member, UCIP International Catholic Press Association, Geneve Member, ICPA Indian Catholic Press Association Member, Indian Press Association Member, Delhi Union of Journalists

Professional (Academic): Chairman of the Governing Board, and former Treasurer, University of Delhi SSN College Ex Vice President, Board of Directors, and Chairman, Education Centre, New Delhi YMCA Ex Member, Board of Curricula, Dept of Journalism, Guru Jambeswar University, Haryana Curricula formation in Journalism - Delhi University and Autonomous institutions Visiting Faculty: IIMC, several universities Former Member, Technical Committee, National Youth Policy 2020, Government of India Director, Centre for Policy Research & Communication, New Delhi

Author/ Edited Anthologies: Gujarat 2002 – Untold and Retold Stories (Media House) 2002 For Reasons of State (with Ajoy Bose) (Vision Books) 1977 Commissions of Enquiry (With Ajoy Bose) 1979 Indian Cinema Superbazar (Ed: Aruna Vasudev)(France) Ethics of Peace (Ed: UCIP) 1995 Wadhwa Commission (Ed: Dr. M P Raju)(Media House) 2000 Christians in Indian Democracy – Challenges and Opportunities (Hindi) In Press 2006 Default Relgion – a critique of secularism in India {scheduled to be published in 2007}

Awards: First International Staines Memorial Awards for Human Rights in South Asia The New Leader Award for Excellence in Journalism Numerous National Media and Human Rights awards

Keynote addresses: Several National and International Media and Human Rights Conferences since 1972

Personal: Born New Delhi, India 2nd October 1948, Educated at St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi (Physics), Diploma in Journalism, Doctor of Divinity, (HC) Human Rights.

Began Journalism in 1968 as Freelance writer and Film critic, worked for national newspapers at all levels, from Junior Subeditor, Reporter, Chief reporter, Political, Diplomatic and Parliamentary Correspondent in India, Lead Writer, European Chief of Bureau in London of the Observer Group, India, former Editor in Chief and CEO, the Delhi Mid Day, New Delhi’s only English language Afternoon newspaper.

As a young reporter in the early Seventies, brought out the first investigations in drug addiction among university youth in Indian, paedophilia in Delhi and police brutality

Reporting on Hindu-Muslim violence during the ‘Seventies and Eighties, John Dayal quickly developed a reputation for fairplay and accuracy, and for deep investigations into the role of the Police/State apparatus as accessories and co-conspirators on behalf of the majority community/ Industrialists/State apparatus in violence against Muslims and other religious minorities, Trade Unions and others. John Dayal has covered dozens of major riots between Hindus and Muslims, and Hindu and Sikhs in the Eighties.

John Dayal covered the ethnic violence in Sri Lanka, and the war in West Asia in several assignments in the ‘Eighties, and has reported widely from the countries of South Asia. He was among the handful of reporters covering the proceedings of the Uruguay round leading to the GATT, TRIPS and TRIMS agreements.

John Dayal was therefore well placed to be the first to document the anti-Christian violence when it first began in the mid Nineties. After reporting on the State discrimination against Christians converted from India’s former untouchable castes, called Dalits, John Dayal published the first Unofficial Report on Violence Against Christians in 1997, cautioning the community and the government that the hate campaign that had been started by right wing and neo-fascist political groups, collectively called the Sangh Parivar, could escalate into a major crisis. In 1998, his Unofficial White Paper on anti Christian Violence made international headlines. The large-scale destruction of Churches in the district of Dangs in the State of Gujarat during Christmas week in December 1998, and the burning alive of the Australian Missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his sons Timothy and Philip tragically showed the accuracy of his sociological prediction.

Dayal was member of three committees of enquiry set up by the Indian National Commission for the Minorities during 1997-98, and his reports for the commission are rated highly for their substance.

Always associated with of the Indian Human Rights movement, John Dayal after 1997 became the International and national face of the Christian human rights movement together with Delhi Archbishop Alan de Lastic, with whom he co-founded the United Christian Forum for Human Rights which was subsequently adopted by the Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical churches as the ecumenical Christian human rights organisation. He has appeared before many national and International Human Rights organisations and agencies to speak about the Indian and South Asian Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Media affairs.

A Catholic and the National President of the laity organisation All India Catholic Union, founded 1919, which represents India’s 16 million Catholics, John Dayal edited its official magazine Vishal Jagruti for three years till 1999. To involve NGOs, independent chuirchs and para church organisations in human rights and civil liberties, John Dayal with Joseph de Souza (President) and others helped co-found the All India Christian Council. He is also closely associated with major national human rights movements including the Citizens Forum, Delhi, and several Human Rights and civil Liberties organisations.

John Dayal today is today internationally accepted as a major spokesman of the Christian Community and Civil Society in India and is interviewed regularly on the Indian and global print and electronic media. He is also deeply involved in the international anti-nuclear weapon and peace movements.

John Dayal is married to Mercy M John, who enthusiastically supports, and often finances, his human rights work. They have two children, Karuna and Jason.

Christian and Community activity and participation:

1. Founder National Convenor, United Christian Forum for Human Right, representing the Catholic, ecumenical and Evangelical Churches and NGOs. Active in Peace, Justice and Human rights issues since 1970. Was active in struggle against human rights violations during the Indian Emergency (1975-77).

2. As member of several Commissions of Enquiry of the National Commission for Minorities, Government of India was instrumental in investigating and writing the reports in cases of violence against minorities, and especially against Christian communities. Investigated human rights violations, police torture and state and administrative connivance in anti-Christian violence in several Indian states.

3. One of the key pointsmen in the human rights monitoring, action and documentation on minority affairs in Indian Subcontinent.

4. Key role in assisting South Asian Churches evolve a response to the Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan.

5. As member of the National Coordination Committee for Dalit Christians set up by the apex Catholic Bishops' Conference of India and the National Council of Churches in India, have been active in the struggle to secure constitutional rights for the poorest of the poor in the community in India.

6. Active in Ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue, particularly on issues of Peace, Justice and Human Rights and the Pluralistic Culture of India.

7. As the Secretary General of the All India Christian Council and National President of the All India Catholic Union, and their spokesman on political and public affairs, articulated the aspirations of the community with distinction at the national and international level. Constant monitoring of the national political and community scene and timely responses have helped the community persuade the Government of India and of several states to roll back inimical legislation and regulations that violated the Indian Constitution secular guarantees.

8. Have assisted the Al India Chritian Council, the All India Catholic Union and various churches in modernising their communications structures, making use of contemporary electronic and cyber technologies.

Sounds notable enough (maybe), but might need a bit of Wikifying... I wonder what others think. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C}

Well he certainly gets plenty of Google hits and probably is worthy of an article. But this is not it; see WP:Autobiography. Nevertheless, by submitting this, Mr Dayal has inadvertently included himself in the "data base" for ever. Perhaps someone who has actually heard of him before could consider starting an article.--Shantavira 08:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Borroloola

Hi, I am having difficulty finding relevant information on Borroloola NT, I found your website has great info, but I wanted more info on census data etc. Was wondering if anyone can help me...ABS website doesnt seem to recognise borroloola! Thanks very much! Tara

What exactly are you looking for? This link to the ABS website lets you download a zipped Excel file with basic demographic information for Borroloola from the 2001 census. No Jedi are listed. --Lambiam^Talk 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You may also find this google search of the abs site useful. Natgoo 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship by birth

If a pregnant woman living in Country A goes on vacation to Country B, and gives birth while on vacation, does the baby become a citizen of B and not A? If so, how does the woman usually get the baby back into the country pending the lengthy (assuming Country A is anything like Canada or the U.S.) immigration process? NeonMerlin 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt the child just get dual citizenship? Philc _T^E_C^I 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See jus soli. — Gareth Hughes 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This depends entirely on the laws of Country A and Country B. It is impossible to generalize. Every nation has its own laws on citizenship. Many nations recognize dual citizenship, but not all do. Your best bet is to explore the websites of the government agencies responsible for citizenship in Countries A and B. Or, if they don't list the rules on their website, contact them by phone or mail.

Most nations will grant citizenship to a child whose parents are both citizens, even if the child was born in a different nation. Most nations will grant citizenship to that child even if only one parent was a citizen, especially if the child is raised in that nation. I can't speak for Canada, but the United States grants citizenship to any child born in the United States, even to a noncitizen mother illegally present in the United States at time of birth, even if the child is then raised elsewhere. However, if that child performs certain acts associated with citizenship in another nation, the child may lose its U.S. citizenship. See this official website for details: [23].

A child with citizenship in Country A may of course travel to Country A at any time, assuming that the child is able to travel alone. However, a child with citizenship in Country A may travel to Country A with a non-citizen parent only if the parent has permission to enter Country A (for example, with a tourist visa). Marco polo 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the general rule is that if one is born in a country, one automatically becomes a citizen of that country. I've also heard that this rule has only one exception: Saudi Arabia. Being born in Saudi Arabia of non-Saudi citizens is the one place where citizenship is not automatically bestowed on any person born in that country. Of course this information may be dated, and possibly even erroneous. So please don't take it as actual fact, but merely something that, if memory serves me correct, is true.

Another thing I should mention is that it was only relatively recently that the US allowed its citizens to have dual citizenship. I would only suspect that dual citizenship is not universally accepted.

Still, I'm a bit hazy on those last two points as I'm only dealing facts that I only vaguely remember hearing of, so I think I'll have do a bit of research to double check. (In other words, don't quote me on it!) Loomis 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few European countries (eg Germany) dont grant citizenship to the children of two foreign immigrants. And France, which used to, recently changed the law in that direction as a result of pressure from anti-immigrant groups. Jameswilson 00:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm quite hazy on this subject. I stand corrected. Loomis 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

D'accord. There was a big campaign in Ireland too a while back to remove that right. I dont know how it ended up. Jameswilson 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ireland used to grant citizenship to all born within her borders, but that was changed some years ago. They had a referendum, a fairly significant majority voted to not grant citizenship simply on being born there. At the time that was going through, one of the arguments was that Ireland was the only EU state to grant citizenship on the principle of location of birth (although since the 10 member enlargement, I don't know if that would still be true today) Mnemeson 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

Who was the first person to set foot on Antarctica, and when? The article doesn't seem to mention this. EamonnPKeane 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jules-Sébastien-César Dumont d'Urville in 1840. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to find reliable sources, and I'm not sure how reliable the web site cited above is, but Dumont d'Urville was probably not the first to set foot on Antarctica. The Wikipedia article History of Antarctica states that Edward Bransfield of the British Navy went ashore on the Trinity Peninsula in 1820. Bransfield certainly sailed around the Trinity Peninsula, but I cannot find any sources confirming that he went ashore. However, several sources, such as this one state that seal hunters went ashore in Antarctica in the 1820s. Specifically, according to the linked source, American sealers commanded by John Davis went ashore in 1821. Marco polo 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Marco Polo only set foot on China. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Stackpole was given a book belonging to descendents of Christopher Burdick of the Huntress of Nantucket. Under clippings pasted in the family scrapbook was Burdick's log of his journey to the far south and his landing on February 7, 1821, at Hughes Bay south of the Orleans Strait, accompanied by Capt. John Davis in the Cecilia out of New Haven. This is the first documented landing on the mainland, although according to second-hand' accounts, Captain McFarlane in the British ship Dragon may have landed earlier.

Shapeley, Deborah (1985). The Seventh Continent: Antarctica in a Resource Age. pp. p. 27. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)EricR 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bruce credits John Briscoe as being the first man to touch shore within the Antarctic Circle, at Adelaide Island, in 1831. Bruce, "The Story of the Antarctic," SGM 10 ( February 1894): 59. Edouard A. Stackpole claims that Captain John Davis, an American whaler, made the first landing on 7 February 1821, but the evidence is inconclusive. Davis put ashore, but there is no indication that he did so on the continent rather than on an island off the coast. See Stackpole, The Voyage of the Huron and the Huntress ( Mystic, Conn.: Marine Historical Association, 1955), 51.

Baughman, T.H. (1994). Before the Heroes Came: Antarctica in the 1890s. pp. footnote p. 133.EricR 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Obsessive compulsive personality disorder

I would appreciate any help you can give me! I have searched to no avail the historical background and the time frame when obsessive compulsive personality disorder was recognized by the field of psychology. Can you help? Thank you so much for any contribution to my search Maureen

There has been a time when hard psychology (reeducate, do no help to understand) and drug companies decided to gain power by declaring that psychological problems were mature to enter their respective (and financially juicy) fields. Whence your child is disordered. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I could find the origination of the disorder? Who discovered it or began implementation? What date was it first recognized by the field of psychology?

Thank you

Maureen

I'm sorry if I was of poor help. There are hints too : the correlation must be good with the growing results of drug companies. As for who discovered that good idea, I'll try to help more. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, did you search your OCPD question on the web ? the oldest book in this specialized site is "Salzman, Leon (1968). The Obsessive Personality. New York: Science House. " Doest that help ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! This is an unbelievable site!

According to the article Obsessive-compulsive disorder, it was recognized before Freud so there may not be a good answer to your question. It seems it was recognized usually as some type of possesion by evil spirits in earlier times and slowly more scientific views came about. Nowimnthing 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You should distinguish between Obsessive-compulsive disorder and Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. With OCD it is pretty much clear to everyone in the sufferer's environment that something is amiss. OCPD is like the extreme end of a fluid continuum, most of which is considered normal, and it is difficult to indicate a boundary where the behaviour becomes "abnormal". --Lambiam^Talk 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Being clearly obsessed by drug companies, I invite you to look at Sisi syndrome before it disappears. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Victorian Era Portraits

I would like to know why every picture of a female from the victorian era looks like they have no shoulders, are slightly overweight, have big eyes, and are not attractive. I find it hard to believe that we've changed from that to what we are today. Any answers welcome. Thanks Bubbles13hm 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Definitions of beauty can change, what you call slightly overweight was then considered a sign of health/prosperity (the poorer you were the skinnier you were because you were starving.) Now we live in a time of such plenty, at least in the Western world, that even the poorest of our population can be fat. As for their beauty I think some of the portraits are of beautiful women, some are not. I guess it is up to the individual. Nowimnthing 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of beauty have changed from hundreds of years ago. In earlier times, men who were overweight and pale were considered very attractive and desirable because their appearence suggested that they were rather wealthy affluent, being able to avoid manual labor in the outdoors.

And around late 19th / early 20th century, when only the rich could afford to go on holiday (southern Europe in winter) and the poor started working more in factories than outdoors, a dark skin tone was associated with wealth (for whites, that is). And when sugar was expensive, having rotten teeth was a sign of wealth, so people blackened their teeth, or so I've heard. I have never seen that on a portrait, though. DirkvdM 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for decent maps throughout (modern) history

Hello,

does anyone know a site (or an article here?) where you can either type in a year (like 1925) and find a world map, or at least find many maps categorized by time?

I am asking because yesterday I was watching a documentary about de Gaulle and his relations with other leaders, and when planning a campaign in Africa, he was looking at a completely different map. So I understand now how weird it is to look at my world map when trying to understand history.

If for instance, I were to to understand international politics in 1963 or whatever, a world map of that year would be extremely useful.

So if anyone has any useful links or whatever, I will be very interested.

Evilbu 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And we could have pages here like "Political world in 1925", &c. Very nice request (no ideas, though). -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Ancient world maps and Library of Congress Map collections. There are a lot more links on Maps that will probably get you what you need. Nowimnthing 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My all-time favorite online map collection is the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection from UTexas. It's a truly amazing resource - maps of all types from all parts of the worlds throughout history - and well organized, too. For instance,here is their section on historical maps of Africa. They also have an excellent links section at the bottom of all the map lists. Lots of other good sites. --Bmk 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

About seven years ago I saw a professor used some commercial software which would allow you to view political maps of the world (or just of Europe?) for any point in time (you could run it like a movie). It was pretty neat stuff. Searching around, I think it was Centennia Historical Atlas Software, which is limited only to Europe and the Middle East (and not cheap, and from the screenshot doesn't look like it has been worked on lately), if you're interested. --Fastfission 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody Hates America

I kind of had an idea that a lot of people around the world didn't like the US but it became very evident to me last night. I was playing COD2 on XBOX Live early in the morning and it was mostly Europeans I was getting matched with. Anybody who is familiar with XBOX360 knows that your country you're in is displayed in you player profile. Almost all saw that I was from the US and they all talked smack and blamed me personally for the war in Iraq. When I joined the American Team on one game, everyone switched to German and they all pwnd me bad. Why does everybody hate America? Thanks. schyler 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are playing a game where kids attempt to ridicule each other based on the little information they have - mainly a username and country of origin. They make fun of your country of origin and you assume that everyone hates your country. The truth is that most people do not hate America. If that were the case, we wouldn't have immigration problems. I've been to many countries as both a civilian and a Marine. I know from first-hand experience that while the fat rude American tourist deserves to be hated, most people still admire America as a country even though they disagree with the politicians. In fact, most people who are not American understand that the President is powerless and Congress is to blame for almost every foreign relation problem. Americans, sadly, will never ever understand that. We will have the same thieves in Congress forever. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the case of the Iraq War, the President (and, specifically, his dark side, Dick Cheney) convinced the US Congress to vote to approve the war. Actually, I don't know of any war the US ever fought against the wishes of the President. StuRat 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But they aren't kids. The majority of them are adults (mid-20's probably, but adults nonetheless) and I encountered this in every game I played. All 23 of them. schyler 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The US is the world's only superpower. It is also currently being run by an administration which has taken very controversial international stances and is waging a controversial occupation in the Middle East. It is also seen as a key supporting ally of Israel, who is involved in its own controversial war. So whatever you think about the US (and the rightness or wrongness of said policies), it is understandable that at the moment, many (not all) Europeans find it pleasurable to denigrate it—whether you want to attribute it to envy, spite, reasoned politics, or whatever else, is up to you. See anti-Americanism, for a more detailed discussion. The real tragedy in this sort of thing is that the individual becomes abstracted to the level of the state — that is, you get blamed for things you had nothing directly to do with (or may in fact personally oppose). Much this is not a new phenomena, and it works both ways. --Fastfission 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a list? I'm not trying to be rude but honestly, ranging from the good, to the poorly based, to ridiculous, there are a lot of reasons. There is no good reason to hate america as such, but a lot of people have a strong dislike for the attitudes, cultures, lifestyles, isolationism, treatment of other countries, and ignorance of america, and americans. I think personally the majority of americans are perfectly good people. However there are aspects which do not appeal.

I would disagree with the statement that america is the worlds only superpower, I think that is an extremely ignorant and arrogant thing to say, and there is no basis for it, I would agree that america is the only sizeable military force looking to constantly excercise this.

Note that "only superpower" doesn't mean "only world power". However, the economic and military power of the US was only rivaled by the Soviet Union, since WW2. Since it no longer exists, that does leave the US as the sole superpower. StuRat 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd have to link to superpower, but I guess I do. It's amazing how often that people who are quick to call others ignorant show their own lack of knowledge in the same breadth... --Fastfission 02:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the misunderstanding here is based in the habit of only looking at opposing superpowers. And until a decade ago the EU wasn't big enough yet. Add to this StuRat's comment and there you are. DirkvdM 07:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact is however wrong it is, it has been stated that more than a third of the world population personally dislike america and americans (I dont know how reputable the source was, but it was reported off BBC news, so it want bollocks). A lot of people have niggles, issues, dislike, and some even hatred of the things I have mentioned, and these are taken out on americans, wether they display the disliked qualities or not.

A lot of the ignorance is mocked on the internet with spoof news reports interviewing americans, most commonly mocked is the percieved geographical knowledge (or lack of) which the american sterotype has. People who refer to muslims as "daiper heads", think that a mosque is a kind of animal, things of that nature, and talking about war, asking people which country should be tackled next as part of the war on terror invites such answers as "Italy", "Germany", "the whole middle east, ther nothing but trouble", "canada" and "Jus nuke 'em all".

It may not be right, but america has the most dislikable sterotype of all of them. And a lot of the criticised aspects of american culture, results in a lot of abuse for americans who wander amongst thos who are not their fans. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think it has a lot to do with jealousy and the corresponding lack of self-esteem of the rest of the world. (Note that I'm not American myself). The US is not only the world's only superpower, it's also the richest, most prosperous country in the world, and I believe its prosperity is well deserved. The Americans, generally speaking of course, are a hardworking, independent thinking and conscientious people. As well, they haven't seem to have fallen into the hyper-pacifist, "Chamberlainian" trap as most Europeans (with the notable exception of the British,) and even most of my fellow Canadians have. When circumstances require it, and all other routes have failed, if the "right thing to do" requires the use of force, they'll use it, reluctantly I should add, and despite the open and free protestations of a very vocal minority of dissenting citizens. The world hates America because they wish they had its strength. Not simply its military strength, but far more imporantly, its strength of character. Notwithstanding all of the above, the US may be a great country, and a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there! :-) Loomis 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The world soon forgets about all the good things the US has done, so here is a short list:

1) Started the anti-colonial movement with the American Revolution, and later finalized it after WW2 by refusing to support the colonial powers of England and France in their war with Egypt over control of the Suez Canal.

2) Provided freedom and sources of income to millions of immigrants, such as many from the Irish Potato Famine.

3) Played a minor role in winning WW1 and a major role in winning WW2, including changing two genocidal empires (the Nazis and Japanese empire) into peaceful members of the world community.

4) Was pivotal in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union (by initiating an arms race which bankrupted it and opposing them in Afghanistan), bringing freedom to hundreds of millions in Eastern Europe.

5) Ended the genocide committed by Serbia against it's neighbors.

So, while the US has committed some mistakes, I can't see how those can be compared to all the good it has done, which adds up to "saving the world", especially during WW2. StuRat 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cherry-picking positive (or pseudo-positive; I'm not convinced that #1 is terribly correct at all in the history of US foreign policy, where it was often colonial in everything but name) points is no more honest or enlightening than cherry-picking negative points. Both are terribly incomplete, terribly deceptive ways to think about a country, its history, and its present affairs.

Along with that I have to say (as I think I have before) that I find your grasp of history to be poor. Personally I don't give the US a terribly strong role in the collapse of the Soviet Union; Soviet economics never worked out anyway, and I suspect that the falling prices of oil in the 1980s owed more to its financial crises than did anything Reagan proposed. In any case I think the role of internal Soviet politics (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, the hardliners) should not be underestimated—totalitarian regimes have existed for decades after they became economically bankrupt in the past and present. And I think it goes too far to say that the US "brought freedom" to those in Eastern Europe — I think it devalues their own contributions, much of which were done completely without US support. And we now know what the end-result of our giving arms to helpful mujahadeen was. You've given the US all of the credit in things in which there were other major participants (say, World War II?), and have air-brushed over even the positive things. If this is supposed to be the "best argument" in favor of the US, then perhaps the anti-Americanism is justified. ;-) Kidding aside, I think there are better things that one could credit the US with (#1 funder of science, technology, and medicine, anyone?), but all the same, I think that a balanced approach, one that does not dismiss the very awful things the US has done as just "mistakes", but attempts to take a more holistic view will be more convincing on the whole. --Fastfission 02:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stu, thats exactly the kind of attitude that the world hates about america, the view that we owe you one fore WWII (we dont get any of this crap from russia), or that bringing down the soviet union was a good thing. Living conditions in eastern european countries are worse now, WORSE, the soviet union was good for its inhabitants, where housing and food were human rights. The fact is americans no more deserve credit for anything, than a modern german should be ashamed of themselves for WWII. Both are in the past. A lot of people need to get over themselves. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And that, Stu, is part of the problem. It's basic human psychology. To take one of your examples, the Americans were clearly the heroes in WWII by essentially, without exageration, literally saving the world from decades or perhaps centuries of tyranny (although I can't resist including the British, another great people, with their "never surrender" attitude; true people of character). But to resent the hero is a basic human trait.

The French/American rivalry is a perfect example. While the disagreements of today may be totally unrelated to WWII, deep down in the French psyche there must be a sort of subconscious insecurity. ("Why didn't we have the strength of character that the British and the Americans seem to have had to have put up more of a fight against Hitler? Why did we act like such cowards and surrender so quickly, only to proceed to so shamefully collaborate with the Nazis? Why did we act so pathetically?")

Of course the French hate the Americans. They hate them because the Americans showed strength when they showed cowardice. They transform their low self-esteem into hatred for those stronger and braver than them.

And that, Stu, in a nutshell, is why I fully and unconditionally support GWB and the war in Iraq. :--)) (Talk about a non-sequitur!) Loomis 02:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very lucid and convincing explanation of why the French hate the Americans. I see one little problem however. I don't think it is true at all that the French hate the Americans. --Lambiam^Talk 07:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See, however, the BBC poll I linked to below. DirkvdM 07:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people may only be familiar with stereotypes of Americans and American cities they've seen on TV: the shallow airheads of LA, the angry crowds in New York, and the hicks and buffoons in Texas. They've also probably seen the "Is our children learning?" speech. Others may hate America due to the obnoxious and irritating loud-and-slow-talking tourists that come to their nations. Some of the others might just be joining in due to the fun of it. (Just theories.)

Re Kainaw's while the fat rude American tourist deserves to be hated. Nobody deserves to be hated. Despise their behaviour if you want, but surely we're a mature enough world to make distinctions between what people do and who they are. JackofOz 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I'd be careful if I were you Jack! Apparently, on top of all the rest, he's a Marine! Loomis 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooooooh, I'm scared now. JackofOz 06:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First Loomis tells me that I'm not allowed to refuse to save the life of people I don't like. Now Jack tells me I can't even hate anyone. What kind of hippie-lovefest is Wikipedia turning into? I bet nobody here even has a sense of humor anymore!

If you've ever travelled abroad, you risk having the same experience that I did - you are trying to blend in with the locals and enjoy yourself. Then, a fat sunburned idiot screams at a clerk because he can't speak English and demands special treatment because he's an American and the U.S. will bomb their country and turn it into a parking lot if they don't start treating Americans with more respect. After that, it is surprising how well I was accepted. Canada and Mexico are expected to be nice because they are close. But, I was surprised how nice people in Panama, Columbia, Brazil, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Turkey were. They would often invite me to their home for dinner. Often the older people couldn't speak English, so the younger ones would translate. In Norway, I had many people asking to practice "American" with me. I was instant friends with nearly everyone I met in South Korea, China, and the Phillipines. The only country I've ever been to where I was not accepted and, for the most part, treated like a dog unworthy of stepping foot on their soil was Israel. Perhaps they've had one too many fat rude American tourists. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's three! I know two people who have been to Israel and they both hated it there. One was a philosopher, who has a very open mind when it comes to other ideas and cultures, but he considered the Israelis very rude (and that is saying somehting because he knows me :) ). The other had gone to Israel for some humanitarian purpose but, once there, switched sides ad started rooting for the Palestinians. DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3 years ago, the BBC did a survey among 11,000 people in 11 countries, including the US. under the name "What the world thinks of America". The results can be seen at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/default.stm. There are some interresting (and puzzling) results. Such as Indonesians having a very negative attitude towards the US, but totally agreeing with their stance on AIDS (more so than the USians themselves). I wonder what caused that. And only a small majority of USians agree with the policy of the US on Palestine and Israel - all the others disagree, including Israel! (mind you, this was three years ago). In general, the stance of France (negative) and the UK and Israel (positive) is as expected. But I didn't expect Russians to be so negative. I wonder if that is a remnant of the socialist rule (unlikely) or more recent developments. Canada is more positive than one might expect and South Korea is either very positive or very negative. A striking lack of nuance there. Also striking is that only one quarter of Israelis and Koreans find their own country more cultured than the US. There is a question about arrogance, but this is best illustrated by this question. For every question as to whether copying the US would be a good idea, US citizens invariably agree most.

And of course there's the military power. Overall more people find the US more dangerous than Iran (but less than Al Qaeda). Striking here is that South Koreans consider the US to be more dangerous than North Koreans. But they also think (more than others) that US presence in the region brings peace and stability. I have no idea how to explain that one. Finally, a small majority think Iraq will benefit from the fall of Saddam, but larger majorities think the US shouldn't have invaded and that the result will be a US-influenced regime or even a US colony. Sort of like 'the right thing was done but by the wrong force', I suppose. DirkvdM 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to StuRat's enumeration of the great things the US have done: 1: The US did support French colonial rule in Vietnam. 3: The European countries were also pivotal in ending the two world wars. It's just that until recently they weren't united and therefore not counted as one. It's easy to be influential when you're big. 4: The Russians brought about the change themselves. For once, the US did not influence a regime change in another country. :) DirkvdM 07:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An important aspect here is size and rooting for the underdog. First the USSR was the big superpower next to the US. Now the EU is. The USSR was percieved as the big bad, wbich reflected positively on the US. That has gone now. It remains to be seen what the EU is going to do with its power and if that will in a decade or so result in just as bad an image for the EU. If not, then there is more than size at play here. DirkvdM 07:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I never picked you for an infracaninophile, Dirk, but miracles do happen.  :--) JackofOz 09:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another word I have to remember! I was of course talking about people in general, but I suppose I am a bit of an infracaninophile too. DirkvdM 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I think this is going offtopic, schyler complained that he was seen as personally responsible for the war in Iraq. There are a couple of things about the AVERAGE American that can be irritating :

• persistently referring to the United States of America as America (something schyler demonstrates)(as if those other countries aren't worth talking about)

Come on, don't forget that everybody refers to them as America, North-American, and Americans. It isn't they who impose that. Flamarande 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't. And considering the hefty discussions at articles about 'America' we aren't the only ones. Most people go along with it because there is no comfortable alternative (unless 'yankee', 'gringo' and 'camarron' count) and they can't be bothered. DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So you won't mid if someone uses "Holland" or "Dutch" right? You appear to be a minority and are simply reinforcing my point. I like "US-citizen". Flamarande 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• basically being monolingual and expecting everyone in another country to speak English (I've even seen teenagers who go to a ticket booth in a station and ask the man "Do you speak English?" and when he makes a gesture saying no, they just without any respect turned away and said "Yeah, great." Forgive the man for not learning every language spoken at this ticket booth?)

English is not "every" language, English seems to be the language of the present and of the future (like it or not) and teenagers are always arrogant. They even might easily have been Western Europeans and not from the US. Flamarande 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

At a New Zealand hostel there was this USian who got really pissed off because the proprietor wouldn't accept US dollars. DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The arrogance of teenagers is plain fact (We are the new cooler generation which will not repeat the (stupid) mistakes of the old one - ever heard that line?). That US-citizen was simply an ignorant as*. Nevertheless you appear to concede that English is not "every" language.

• added to that, some are nonlingual as they write stuff like "what of you done" "who's there teacher" and "I wan't", when I am on international forums I can quickly identify US'ers.

Poor spelling is standart for teenagers everywhere (It is suppossed to be cool or elite = Leet, you know?). Flamarande 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

These examples aren't. DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They may not be cool, but teenagers (ans early 20's)everywhere make such mistakes in every language. Sorry, but I can't give you any Dutch examples (you might offer us some though). Flamarande 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• poor geographic knowledge, even concerning countries like Israel, Iraq and Taiwan

Compared against whom? Ignorance is present everywhere (even in Euope). And "our" knowledge of American ignorance is a bit biased. Our "cultural superiority" towards the American cultural imperialism is nationalism with a new facelift Flamarande 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the same but related - I bet most West Europeans will know the geography of the US better than that of Russia. But that's cultural imperialism, one that Evilbu forgot to mention, except the other way around. DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I meet a German which didn't knew if Portugal was an independent country or not (same continent). Flamarande 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• looking down upon nations that have a far better educational and social welfare program. I've been to the USA and to my amazement they were collecting money for schools! Where my aunt lives, daycare centers for infants are funded by the lottery...

Nevermind that Europe (like Japan) is turning into a continent of old pp and nobody really knows how to pay the social welfare program we are so immensly proud of. Flamarande 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean 'we' don't know how to pay for it? We've still got it, so apparrently 'we' do (although that depends on who you mean by 'we'). DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dirk are you for real? We have less and less kids in Europe and more and more old ppl. Many European countries (like Germany) are making huge reforms in that sector because they don't know how to fund these social systems. Flamarande 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• being the only people on earth for whom "foreign film" seems to be a universal term

Well, at least they are honest about it. We Europeans call them by other exotic names (besides funding ad absurdum European films which are blantantly ignored by us.) Flamarande 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to prove it's not just the USians who can't spell? :) DirkvdM 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read my userpage you will notice that I have merely an advanced knowledge of the English language. Flamarande 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

These are of course stereotypes, not every US'er is like that. But I wanted to answer schyler's question which seems more concerned with attitudes towards the average US'er than the USA government. I myself have family living in the USA, who married US'ers and some even adopted the USA's nationality. So it's not that I hate these people due to these annoyances. Evilbu 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a useful link for why "people hate America" (assuming that they do). And here's a far better link. Enjoy. (If you're only going to read one, read the second one.) --Dweller 12:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dweller, how can you say the second link is better than the first. The first still tries to give a reasonable explanation in a systematic way. The argument about the second one about homosexuals is absurd : how come they aren't allowed to marry while they are in Belgium, the Netherlands,... And "Venezuele just sits there" I'm sure what to think. We've reached a low if we have to commend the USA for not invading a country. Evilbu 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, language barriers are awkward, aren't they. The second link is (I assume/d) intended to be humorous. --Dweller 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First of I don't belive that everybody hates the US: I rather believe that way many ppl have a Love-hate relationship with the US. You have to simply realize that being "Anti-USA" is quite fashionable these days with Guantanamo and Iraq. And what were you expecting? Eternal gratitude? Unconditional support in absolutly everything no matter what? Undying loyalty? Don't be soo bloody naive: people (and especially nations) don't work that way. Even if your country owes something to the USA (liberated by the GI's of the Germans or the Japanese during the WWII) time passes and and a whole new generation arrives who wasn't even born at that time and which might be fascinated by the USA, but won't fell any gratitude towards it. Add to that a little nationalism, plain double-standarts, ingratitude, envy, diffrent attitude towards religion, arrogance based upon our "superior" culture compared to the US cultural "imperialism", etc. All peoples and countries have such attitudes. It is simply a Love-hate relationship.

Then add to that a "really smart" president. That guy is the perfect embodyment of all caracteristic we really hate in the political establishment: the born-again Christian which disbelieves science, the arrogant as* which for the sake of the industry totally ignores the enviroment while everybody is truly afraid of the clima-change. The self-rightous WARdemocrat who believes that he can impose democracy through the barrel of a gun. The hipocritical politician who proclaims that he only wants to save the world from Saddam Hussein (another devious dude) while it is so obvious that oil is what really matters. And at his side? The power-behind-the-throne (Dick Cheney), the mouth-of-Sauron (Donald Rumsfeld) and the stupid bimbo (Condolenza Rice). What a pack of of lying and ignorant politicans (they can't even lie in a believable manner!). It is SOO easy to despise these guys.

And what do they do? Patriot Act (Rights? What rights?), Guantanamo prison (Again: Rights? What rights?), Invasion of Iraq under plainly unconvincing reasons (Proof? What Proof? and the "devious WOMD which the Sadam soo cunningly hid before the invasion" ARGH) and blatantly ignoring the UN (Nice. Real nicely done, NOT.). That invasion is big clusterfuc* which is turning into a nightmare. The majority everywhere (except in the US) was against this invasion (inquiries being worth what they are worth). They certainly blame and feel betrayed by lying local politicians like Tony Blair, Aznar and Howard but they blame the US even more (because the US "convinced" the local politicians into this mess).

And that administration gets elected not once but twice ! (let's even forget the 1st election) by the American ppl. So in final analyses the blame falls upon the the American ppl (by the way I don't share this view but I don't blindly love the US either). Why shouldn't they fell a bit of irrational hatred towards the US? Flamarande 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

simply put, the USA could take a particularly deep fall precisely because of their high prestige after all their great deeds throughout the 20th century. In five years, the current USA have managed to squander a lot of credit accumulated by the generations of their parents and grandparents, and the world is reacting more strongly when a trusted ally turns "evil empire" on them than wrt dodgy nations they never trusted in the first place. dab (ᛏ) 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I add my two cents in to this behemoth of a post-turned-debate? Please understand that I'm not commenting on the posters here - just the general state of the world. I think the entire idea of a country is ridiculous. Pretend for a moment you are looking back from the far future when we've finally managed the basic task of living together in peace. Can you imagine how infantile our little games of drawing lines on the map and playing spy and waving pieces of fabric around must seem? What is it that fellow said... "patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel". At best, I hope this era of nations and patriotism is a bad dream between the dawn of intelligence and the unexplored future. We're all humans on this unimaginably tiny speck of dirt orbiting in a vast emptiness. We all need to get real. --18.239.6.57 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC) PS: Again, that was not directed at the nice folks debating here. Just the world in general.

"Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do". --Dweller 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And no religion too. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Be a dreamer and then be suprised and amazed that the real world works along mysterious evil ways. Be rather a Real-politiker and really study politic, economics, religion, warfare and most importantly history (and really try to understand the other side - hard but indespensable). You will come understand that this world of *hit is very, very, very slowly turning into something better. Flamarande 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That used to be a very popular view of history. It was known as the Whig School of History. Unfortunately, the barbarism of World War One discredited the idea that we're all progressing. And then World War Two's excesses of inhumanity consigned the idea to the dustbin of historiography. --Dweller 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To be replaced by "good old" political correctnesa and plain double-standarts? Both WWI and WWII ended and the world is still improving (I am not forgetting the dead, but fact is that the world is simply better compared to before WWI or WWII). And the barbarism of WWI and WWII finally really showed the world that: "War is hell." Something which had been always denied before under blatant propaganda-lies like "heroism", "glory" and "national honour".

Still the devil is in the details: Simply be a realist (like in Realism (international relations)), and acknowledge that everybody (and every nation) is after his own piece of the pie, and that everybody lies when we really have to. We aren't angels, we also are demons in equal mesure. We are simply humans and sometimes we err, fear, hate, decieve, love and help each other. In the end civilization and morals are but a thin veneer which easily cracks (acknowledging that is the first step in finding what we really are - plain humans). (Almost) everything depends upon the circunstances. Flamarande 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

War is hell, the closest form I have had to endure was the wound in his shoulder (from WWII) my grandfather suffered from for decades. But it's a bit simplistic to just impose peace once and for all. There are many insane people out there, but some do have a reason. "Those against peace, usually have peace against them". Evilbu 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The world's not improving. They called WWI "the war to end all wars", but along came WWII. After WWII the world looked at the Holocaust and said, "ooh, never again", but we've had horrendous genocides since. Fact is, human beings are no different. Go tell the Rwandans that WWI "finally showed the world that: "War is hell"." Sadly... --Dweller 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the world is perfect, it still has a long, long long way to go. The problem is that too many ppl naively believe in unreal statements like "the war to end all wars" and then somehow get amazed that the world is still far away from a global peace. Well I am truly sorry, but we still are far far away from that. But a 100 years ago there were more similar massacres than today. Fact is that today almost nobody really cares what happens in Africa (sad, but true). This is a simple fact, and to simply deny it is simple political correctness. We mostly care for ourselfs, then for our family, then our friends, then our country, then our culture/religion, then our race/continent (it isn't as easy as that but you can get my point).

Few care for Africa and no "white" politician or President is going to gain votes for sending troops into Africa (as Mogadisho has clearly shown). If they gained votes for that they would have sent them. But imagine the Rwandan genocide had happened 100 years ago. You (or anyone) wouldn't complain at all or fell the least ashamed about it. We would be rationalizing that those "heathen savages" have to be subjugated/colonized for their own good by our "superior Christian white country/ppl". The images on the TV have a minor impact upon our lives but still we can't simply deny them. It will take a long time until all countries can impose internal peace but we are getting there. Flamarande 16:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PEACE! DirkvdM 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe in peace though skilled negotiation (diplomacy) and, if really needed, superior firepower. You want peace? Then you have to accept RESPONSABILITY. If you know that a cause is just and worthy you have to defend/fight for it. Peacenik's are cowards who hide behind soldiers and cops to protect them, their family, and their property. After the soldiers and cops have fought, killed, and even died for them, they simply wash their hands and call them murderers. Accept respnsability for your vote and your goverment. Flamarande 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WOW! I never expected this kind of return. Just under 50 posts! I greatly appreciate reading everybody's viewpoint. I also liked the poll from the BBC a lot. It was very surprising, enlightening, and informative. I don't like when I'm in a different country and fellow vacationers/tourists talk slowly and get mad if somebody doesn't speak English. I never thought that that could be a reason for people hating America though. I've been to Mexico and it was thououghly embarassing for my parents to be acting that way. "Weeee (points at everybody at the table) wooould liiike sooome comida." It's just terrible. Thank you all. schyler 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was quite a discussion. Nice work schyler :) --198.125.178.207

Well, speaking slowly is part of my "monolingual" complaint. As soon as someone learns a different language (just the fundamental basics) you start to learn what is different and what not. Speaking slower or repeating will not do it, cutting out useless words like "we", "if", "also", and lots of gestures can do the trick...

Edit : it's not because I gave a lost of reasons for being annoyed by some US-ers, I don't want to talk to them. Apart from my family, I engage in play and discussion about all sorts of things with US-ers on an almost daily basis. Evilbu 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Evilbu 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i simply cant let americans think that we europeans envy them. yes america is rich but you also have an embarrasingly high crime rate, massive social inequality, emit more carbon than you know what to do with and well, the list goes on (i havent covered health care, addiction to oil etc). the fact simply remains that (btw i'm british), the european electorate doesnt want to give up our quality of life for some uber-capitalist money making machine - the politicians who suggest such things invariably lose.201.8.193.229 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Boyfriend in the Nickelback video 'Far Away'

I was just wondering who played the boyfriend/husband in the new Nickelback video 'Far Away'.

Thank you, April

rumination disorder

Hi I am doing a presentation in a Clinical Psychology Course where we have to give a history of Rumination Disorder, such as time frame of when it was put in the DSM, what was going on in the world at this time, etc. Any help would be greatly appriciated!

Is there any mention of a 4 toed creature or god anywhere?

Is there any mention of a large 4 toed creature or humanoid? It may be in the south pacific. It would probably be a religious symbol to a native people perhaps.

Thanks

We have the four-toed hedgehog, the four-toed jerboa, and the four-toed salamander. But none are large or humanoid, and not likely to be encountered in the South Pacific. Could it have been a left foot? --Lambiam^Talk 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or a bloke who's had an accident but was luckier than Fred Titmus, who was something of a god in the Middlesex region. --Dweller 11:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You will not find the answers to the puzzles of Lost on Wikipedia. --LarryMac 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You saying that Fred Titmus isn't the answer to one of the puzzles of Lost!??! <grins> --Dweller 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The symbol is widely spread in Disney characters' hands. This might be something related to arcane things as it gives them 22 knuckles. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Roe Singer Songwriter

Hello There.

This is the first time I have used the Wikipedia site so I do hope I am taking the right steps here. My name is Marion e-mail address removed

For the past 4 years I have been researching information to add to my Family Tree. My late cousin born Ann Maclagan about 1939 England was once married to singer songwriter Tommy Roe born in Atlanta Georgia in 1942. I believe this was my Cousins 3rd marriage and when the couple divorced my cousin still kept the surname Roe up until she died. I am wondering apart from Tommy Roes present wife can anyone furnish me with details concerning his other marriages. Would there also be any photos I could view of his wives.

Regards Marion Sydney Australia

I've done thorough web searches, and they don't seem to indicate that he was married to anyone else other than Josette Banzet. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't a great deal of personal information at Tommy Roe. AllanHainey 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CD transfer

hello.....can someone tell me how, or where to look to find info on how to burn music from one cd to a blank cd.........thanks.... e-mail address removed

If this a a way to make me tell the name of a commercial product and indirectly gain publicity for it ... nopes. I won't tell that I use Nero burning because I'm not sure if it's legally on my PC (which I just recently stolen from my banker while he was impoverishing hundreds of endebted poor people). -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pianists

Who are generally considered the top ten living classical pianists? Sashafklein 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you would ever get general agreement, but my list would include (no particular order, and I'm sorry but I can't get it down to only ten): Ivo Pogorelich, Alfred Brendel, Leif Ove Andsnes, Peter Donohoe, Mitsuko Uchida, Arcadi Volodos, Martha Argerich, Mikhail Pletnev, Lang Lang, Murray Perahia, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Maurizio Pollini, Stephen Hough, Alexis Weissenberg, John Chen (pianist), and Angela Hewitt (peerless in Bach). JackofOz 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice list, Jack. I would like to add Pierre-Laurent Aimard, who is miraculous in modern repertoire like Messiaen and Ligeti. David Sneek 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne Bobbitt. Did I mishear the question? --Dweller 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The late Vladimir Horowitz (weep, sob) is credited with saying "There are 3 kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists". Knowing what I do about poor old Bobbit, I'd be pretty safe in saying he belongs in the third category. JackofOz 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

AAAAHHHH!!!! How could you leave out Van Cliburn? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of a law question

If there is a terribly maintained town road, that never gets repaired fully, but patched at random intervals, and constantly has potholes 3" or more deep scattered throughout the road, would it be fruitful at all to send a bill to the town department for repairs that arose from the car driving over the potholes? The goal wouldn't only be for them to pay for the repairs, but to motivate them to pave the road. I was wondering what sort of laws there were for the towns responsibility to maintain roads. Thanks for any help, and sorry for the rambling, Newnam^(talk) 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It really may depend on where you are and what the local laws say. --Lambiam^Talk 07:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend going to a town council meeting (or whatever the equivalent is in your town) and voicing your concerns. It may sound hopeless, but that's what everyone thinks, so you will probably be one of the few people who are actually heard. At least in my town, they do occasionally get things done. Take it to the top! --198.125.178.207 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, a town meeting sounds like a good idea! Newnam^(talk) 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Ask the clerk for an agenda - there's probably a part for anyone present to take the floor, or you could also contact the clerk before hand, and they can put you on the agenda. --Bmk 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Towns are governed state and municipal law if you I would examine your municipal and state laws relating to road payment.

ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATION

What is article of association?

See articles of association. There is a very handy search box on the left of the screen. Natgoo 06:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you most likely want to read Articles of Association (law). --Lambiam^Talk 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So you can read the same article twice! Natgoo 07:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. There is also Articles of Association, which is about something entirely different. --Lambiam^Talk 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Get down tonight!

In the popular disco song "Get Down Tonight," what is the instrument we hear in the very beginning? It sounds like a harp or a zither, but I can't be certain. It may just be an electric guitar, but I just can't put my finger on it. Please help! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well since it was recorded before the age of computerised music modifications, I'd say it's almost certainly a zither, dulcimer, maybe an electric guitar, but not a harp. It could also be a lute or a mandolin with metal strings. The bent notes are the giveaway.--Anchoress 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bounty hunters

Are bounty hunters legal in the UK and if so how do i become one?

They're legal and, it would seem, searching for paradise somewhere outside of the UK. Rather worryingly, they've not been seen since the mid 1990s. See here and Bounty (chocolate bar) --Dweller 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving your question an attempt at a serious answer, I think that they are not. The basic laws that enable bounty hunters to exist in the US don't exist in the UK (basicly you can't kidnap someone just because they owe you money!). I think that's true of most other Western nations too. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Parliament

Hi there, I am a little confused. Do england, wales, scotland and n.ireland all have their own individual parliaments given that they all considerd 'countries within a country'?

Many thanks, Isabel

Hi Isabel - The situation isn't uniform, each nation within the UK has a different setup. The UK as a whole is governed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster. Scotland has their own Parliament in Holyrood, and Wales has their own Assembly in Cardiff. These had different powers from each other (Scotland has had the ability to make its own laws since the creation of the new parliament, wheras Wales could only modify those being created at Westminster), but a week or two back, Wales was granted its own law making powers. Northern Ireland has their own Assembly at Stormont, but that is currently suspended, and run from Westminster, due to factional infighting which has stalled the Good Friday Agreement peace process. England has no assembly or Parliament of its own, leading to the West Lothian Question, where Scottish MPs can vote on matters that only affect England.

Hope this answers your question, please check the links for more detailed info, and don't hesitate to ask again if you're still confused :) Mnemeson 11:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Isabel! Only recently has devolution been practiced in the modern politics of the United Kingdom. The Parliament of Northern Ireland is the oldest devolved government, but its successor, the Northern Ireland Assembly, is currently in suspension. The Scottish Parliament has the most power of the devolved assemblies, the other being the National Assembly for Wales. England, the largest country in the union doesn't have its own national assembly, and is ruled directly by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. However, there have been calls for an English Parliament. One plan the goverment did have was to give the regions of England their own assemblies (Regional assemblies in England) — out of this we got the London Assembly — but the move to create an assembly for the North East England was defeated in a referendum, and the plan has been shelved. — Gareth Hughes 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the powers of the various assemblies and parliaments varies, the Scottish Parliament can legislate only on areas which aren't reserved to Westminster like foreign affairs and taxation (apart from the ability to vary the income tax set by Westminster by 3 pence in the pound which was won by referendum). I'm not sure whether there are different reserved areas for the different countries but I'd expect it - traditionally Scotland has retained its own legal, medical & education systems so the Scottish Parliament has gained power over these areas but for N Ire, Wales, etc these areas have been dealt with by Westminster so these areas may be reserved to Westminster. The London Assembley isn't really a parliament, more like the old Greater London Council. AllanHainey 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Incas

what is the difference between Incas ans Aztecs, are they one and the same, two separate peoples or is axtec used a general term and Incas a specific ruling family? Thank you

No, they are quite distinct. As this is an encyclopedia, you can read all about both amazing groups of people in the articles called inca and aztec. --18.239.6.57 13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Incas lived in the Peruvian highlands; Aztecs dwelt in what is now part of Mexico. That's the main difference. I suppose they had some similarities, but, no, they are different people. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Age

What % of people reach a 100

Depends. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

14,000 in France today [24] means 0.023 % [25]. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the percent of people who are 100 yrs old? Not quite the same as the question. Basically, that percentage is way too low, because you're counting all the people who are still alive! You haven't given them a chance to get to 100 yet. That figure would be correct if someone nuked france and everyone died today. Not something i'm advocating, by the way. --198.125.178.207 16:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're not referring to scoring 100, and assuming you mean today, you do really need to specify where you're asking about... the World? USA? Mongolia? --Dweller 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He says 'people'. So that's the world. I've tried to find some answers, but demographic data don't usually seem to go higher than 'over 80' or 'over 85'. Category:Demographics by country was a bit too much to check all of them out. DirkvdM 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is somewhere really remote?

The last question prompted me to wonder... when British people want to say in an exaggerated way that somewhere is exceptionally remote, they might refer to "Timbuktu" or "Outer Mongolia". (There may be others).

What about people elsewhere? I'd guess, for example, that people living in Mongolia might have a different expression... --Dweller 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tristan de Cunha? --HappyCamper 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. What nationality refers to that island? --Dweller 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure myself - I think I misread your question. I thought you were just looking for remote places on Earth. --HappyCamper 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget BFE. I asked a Nigerian doctor what they use since Timbuktu is so close. He said it doesn't translate from Nigerian to English well, but it is a place too far away to walk to. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget one of my favorites! "You should be deported to Yukon..."/ ;) Viva La Vie Boheme

In Australia that would be "beyond the black stump" (ha! Beat you to it, Jack!). In the Netherlands it's 'verweggistan' ('farawayistan').

As for actual places, I wanted to say Amsterdam, but Tristan da Cunha ('Tristan of the cunt'?) is indeed more remote. Then again, both islands have neighbour islands. Easter Island isn't as remote as I thought either and the Pitcairn Islands are plural, so no luck there either. Is there really no really remote single island? Ah, Extreme_points_of_the_world#Remoteness mentions Bouvet Island. There, that's solved. Then again, there's also the South Pole in winter. Or you coiuld take a boat to the eastern Pacific. Depends on how you define 'remote' and 'place'. DirkvdM 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the farthest reaches of space. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Australia has a few more - "the back of Bourke" and "Woop Woop". I also find "Buttfuck, Nowhere" extraordinarily useful at times, which I think I nicked from Americans. Natgoo 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Schwarzkopf's Desert Island Discs

THe story is told that she was interviewed on th BBC program Desert Island Discs and all but one of her picks were her own recordings. What was her exact list of Desert Island Discs?

Skramer0 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-presidents of the U.S.

In what year did the U.S. have the most living ex-presidents? I don't mean all gathered together a photo op (as at Nixon's funeral); just out of office and still alive. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is covered in the Trivia section of the President of the United States article. (It is a tie - three periods during which five former Presidents were alive.) Rmhermen 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, my timeline wasn't precise enough to figure that out. --Uncle Ed 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete Studio Recordings

The Complete Studio Recordings by Led Zeppelin, how much is it in local (Edmonton, Alberta,) HMV stores? I heard it was something like $150.00.Jk31213 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

President of Argentina

Hello everyone,

I would like please to know if there are any limitations on a candidate for presidency in Argentina. Is true that he has to be Christian?

Thanks a lot, Tommy

The article President of Argentina has the answers you're looking for, and much more. Until 1994, the president had to be baptized Roman Catholic, but that is no longer true. --User:bmk

Actually, I take it back. The above cited article states that the rest of the requirements are the same as the requirements for the Argentine senate, which is true, but the Argentine Senate article doesn't have the info. I'm adding it now. FYI, Section 55 of the Argentine constitution states that:

"In order to be elected senator the following conditions are required: to have attained to the age of 30 years, to have been six years a citizen of the Nation, to have an annual income of two thousand strong pesos or similar revenues, and to be a native of the province electing him or to have two years of immediate residence therein." --Bmk 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro's real age

Are rumors that he claim to have born in 1926, but was really born in 1927 true?

Do you mean "rumors", instead of "rooms"? I don't see any evidence that he was born in any year other than 1926, but perhaps someone else could shed brighter light on the subject. (see Fidel Castro)--Bmk 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

longest serving american general officer

In in U.S. Which current active duty general/ flag officer was commisioned in the military the earliest?

Cara Hyder of Springfield Mass

Cara, if you read this how are you doing?

Can we get rid of this one? I'm sure there are better ways to contact Cara Hyder of Springfield Mass. --Bmk 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

When Castro dies, who are likely contenders for the leadership?

Besides Raul, who is likely to be prime canidate to take over for Castro?

LLM programs

Does any one know of any reputable LLM programs that can either taken online or by correispondence?